Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Community Sport (Funding)

Stephen Hepburn: If he will make a statement on funding opportunities in sport for local communities.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Sport England is the Government's lead agency for delivering investment into community sports. It makes lottery and Exchequer funding available for sport in local communities through its community investment fund, the National Sports Foundation and the community club development programme.

Stephen Hepburn: I congratulate the Minister on the work that he is doing for grass-roots sport throughout the UK. However, I remind him that in April this year, the then Secretary of State made a commitment that local, grass-roots sports clubs would not be affected by any diversion of funds to the Olympics in the south-east. Is the Minister willing to confirm those assurances?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Clearly, the Government are committed to grass-roots sports; through the community amateur sports club initiative and a great deal of investment in school sport, we want to make sure that we get to the grass roots. However, the 2012 Olympics will clearly be important and it is important that we fund them appropriately. We need to make sure that we meet the budget announced in March this year. I am sure that the lottery order will be debated in the House with a great deal of verve, and I look forward to that debate.

Nicholas Winterton: Would the Minister accept that there are very many talented and able people in the north-west as well as in the north-east of this country—not least in my constituency of Macclesfield? Is he aware that many people are deeply concerned that too much money will be allocated to London and the south-east, thus depriving other vital areas of investment in sport, which is so important if the whole country is to benefit from the Olympic games in 2012?

Gerry Sutcliffe: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Although we know that the games will be here in London in 2012, it is important that the whole country should benefit from the Olympics being in the UK. Some 79 per cent. of UK citizens believe that it is a good idea for us to hold the 2012 Olympics. With the help of governing bodies and local authorities, we will make sure that a sporting legacy exists from 2012. I shall work with the hon. Gentleman in the north-west and colleagues all over the UK to make sure that we benefit from the enthusiasm for the Olympic games.

Jamie Reed: Will the Secretary of State return to Whitehaven in my constituency to evaluate the digital switchover programme—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call the hon. Gentleman during the next question.

Madeleine Moon: Local communities in my constituency benefit from the support given by many adults who give up their time to train local teams. Does the Minister agree that, as an important priority, local authorities must also invest in the changing facilities that will allow local teams to compete in local derbies, so giving a clear message to parents and adults who invest their time that local authorities are also investing in young people?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I heartily agree. Local government plays an important role in the provision of sport through the playing fields infrastructure and making sure that we have sports centres. My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the role of coaches; that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced a £5 million investment to increase the number of coaches. Given that and the announcement on school sports, coaching will be key in the UK. Clearly, we will want to support those volunteers who are level 1 coaches and want to aspire.

Digital Switchover

David Anderson: What steps he is taking to ensure that older people will receive appropriate support in the digital switchover programme.

James Purnell: The BBC has helped establish and funds a £600 million help scheme, which will assist the over-75s and those with significant disabilities, including the blind or visually impaired, to convert to digital TV services. Help is free of charge to the poorest households—those on income support or pension credit. Others will pay a £40 charge.

David Anderson: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply, which explains how people will access digital services after the switchover. However, people are worried about not only how they will get them, but what will be on them. In my area, one of the things that people are worried about is the loss of real, local news, and regional television programmes being superseded by cross-region programmes. What does the Secretary of State intend to do to ensure that genuine local news will be saved after the switchover for older people and others?

James Purnell: I reassure my hon. Friend that no decision has been taken on ITV's proposals on regional news. That will be a decision for Ofcom, which has said that it will take it next year as part of its public service funding review. I think that the whole House would say that when we passed the Communications Act 2003 we put regional news right at the heart of ITV's responsibilities, and it should continue to be so.

Peter Luff: Is the Secretary of State aware that the digital switchover programme could have a serious impact on older people through the workings of the digital dividend review? Does he understand that mobile phone operators and others are putting a great deal of pressure on Ofcom to release Channel 69, which is a vital channel for community groups, village halls, churches and so on? Will he take an intelligent interest in the digital dividend review to ensure that public interest is served, not just that profits are maximised?

James Purnell: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that has been recognised by Ofcom, which has, as he knows, issued a separate review to look into exactly that issue. I hope he agrees that an overall way forward has been found. I know that he has concerns about the detail of how it will be implemented, and I encourage him to raise them with Ofcom, as I have following our discussion last week.

Jamie Reed: Thank you for calling me again, Mr. Speaker. I am very honoured and Members are delighted.
	Earlier this year, the Secretary of State visited my constituency to see for himself the preparations for digital switchover. Will he visit again in the next fortnight, once the analogue signal has been switched off, in order to perform an effective evaluation of the switchover process?

James Purnell: I cannot promise to visit my hon. Friend in the next fortnight, but I will certainly study the results very closely. I pay tribute to him for the leadership that he has provided on this issue. There has been a fantastic effort in Whitehaven to ensure that the digital switchover gets off to a good start, and the efforts of Digital UK and all its partners have given us a good chance of getting there.

Peter Bone: A number of elderly people in my constituency have had their analogue signal turned off as a result of a big factory being built next door to them. Neither the Government, nor the regulator, nor the local council will take responsibility for that, and they are left with no signal at all, never mind digital switchover.

James Purnell: Obviously I do not know the details of the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but if he writes to me I will be happy to look into it. When digital switchover comes, anyone in a vulnerable group will have access to the scheme that will provide digital equipment free for the poorest. If they are unable to access digital terrestrial television, the scheme will ensure that they can get digital TV by another means, such as satellite.

Paul Farrelly: In the run-up to digital switchover, there have been concerns about older people, in particular, getting ripped off by unscrupulous aerial cowboys. How have the Government been encouraging the industry to get its act together, and what preliminary evidence has there been from Whitehaven in this regard?

James Purnell: I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no flying cowboys in Whitehaven. He raises a very important point. Anybody who is cold-called or approached by someone claiming to want to change their aerial should treat that with some suspicion. There is a registered scheme for aerial installers, and people who want to have their aerial upgraded should use people from that scheme only.

Digital Television

Anne McIntosh: What the take-up of digital television in (a) Yorkshire and Humberside, (b) the north-east and (c) the north-west was in the most recent period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

James Purnell: We do not collect statistics based on Government regions. According to Digital UK-Ofcom figures, take-up by ITV regions is as follows: Granada, 81 per cent.; Yorkshire, 78 per cent.; and Tyne Tees, 90 per cent.

Anne McIntosh: There is a great deal of confusion as to whether, when a television set needs to be replaced, people, particularly those on low incomes and older people—not only those over 75 but those between 60 and 75—should replace them with digital televisions, given that they cannot receive the signal at the moment. Can the Secretary of State give some advice as to what they should do for the next three or four years?

James Purnell: I think that the hon. Lady's question is about people who are in an area where they cannot currently receive terrestrial digital television. Of course, if they buy a set-top box, it will not be able to be used until the digital signal is switched on. Clearly, those people would be well advised to prepare as early as possible by buying the necessary equipment, which will then be available to be used when the switchover happens. That will stop them from having to have a last-minute rush to ensure that they can continue to receive television.

Public Service Broadcasting

Austin Mitchell: If he will make a statement on the future of public service broadcasting.

James Purnell: The Government believe that public service broadcasting will remain an important part of our public realm. In my speech to the Royal Television Society on 13 September, I identified our goals for broadcasting as open markets, universal access to high-quality output, and empowering consumers. We are setting up a convergence think-tank made up of experts from inside and outside Government to help us to secure those goals.

Austin Mitchell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cuts envisaged by ITV run directly contrary to the commitments made by the ITV companies when they took on these contracts; and that if allowed they, coupled with the BBC's cuts in regional provision, will be directly and substantially damaging to the provision of news and regional programmes in the regions which are so important to us? Is it not time, therefore, that the Government, instead of leaving this issue to the market or to a nervous Ofcom, reaffirmed their strong public support for and commitment to public service and regional broadcasting?

James Purnell: I am happy to make exactly that declaration. This House made it very clear through the Communications Act 2003 that it expected regional television to be right at the heart of what ITV does. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that any such change would be a change to the terms under which the companies got their licences. That is why I said in response to an earlier question that no decision had been made on the matter. Ofcom will have to consider the matter next year, and I am sure that it will take into account the strong feelings expressed about it in this House.

Adam Price: After a quarter of a century of Sianel Pedwar Cymru, the Welsh language fourth channel, being overseen from Wales and Westminster, does the Secretary of State agree with Plaid Cymru and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that responsibility for it should be transferred to Wales, where the majority of Welsh speakers live?

James Purnell: If the hon. Gentleman wants to submit a proposal on that, we are happy to look at it. Traditionally, the process has been dealt with at the UK Government level because broadcasting has implications throughout the UK. In the same way, digital switchover involves spectrum planning throughout the whole of the UK, and the use of the licence fee or the use of public funding has UK-wide implications. I am happy to discuss that issue with him and the authorities in Wales if they want to submit that proposal.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) for his support for my idea.
	I urge the Secretary of State to be a bit more robust with ITV. Will he point out two things to it? For decades ITV was effectively given a licence to print money, and consumers in Britain expect better than to see it running away from its obligations. If it stops doing not just local and regional news, but current affairs and other kinds of local programming, the people of Britain will think, "This channel isn't really part of our national heritage any more. Frankly, we can get rid of it."

James Purnell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that local and regional news is at the heart of what people value about ITV, and it would clearly be the best approach for ITV to find a way of making that remit profitable. No decision has been made on the proposals put forward to Ofcom, and I am sure that Ofcom and ITV will listen to the strong views expressed on this matter.

Mark Pritchard: Does the Minister agree that the west midlands is an entirely different region from the east midlands? If he does agree, what action will he take to ensure that Central TV news is not cut as a result of the proposals? We need to start seeing competition in news delivery in the regions, instead of the current monopoly enjoyed by the BBC.

James Purnell: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that competition at the local and regional level is important. Like other hon. Members who have made their views clear on that during this Question Time, I advise him to make clear to ITV and Ofcom the strength of his feelings about it. I am happy to agree that the west midlands and east midlands are different regions.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a public service broadcaster should have a recruitment process that is fair and open to all the talents? I refer him to the recent research by the Sutton Trust, which shows the predominance of independently educated, public school people in the hierarchy of the BBC.

James Purnell: Given that I went to an independent school, it would be slightly hypocritical to lecture the BBC on that— [ Interruption. ] It is important for people throughout the cultural industries to ensure that people from all backgrounds are working for them. All of our taxes pay for their products, so we are all entitled to be represented.

Don Foster: Recent scandals have dented trust in our public service broadcasters. Channel 4 has a looming financial crisis, as does ITV. Those may be matters for Ofcom, but the Government are responsible for the BBC. Two years ago, the BBC announced 4,000 job cuts and there are now more to come. The Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), said that the below-licence-fee settlement would lead to certainty and stability for the BBC. Does he accept that what we now have is uncertainty and instability?

James Purnell: I do not accept that. I think that the settlement was fair and reasonable for the BBC. Some people said that we should not give it a charter at all, but we did. Some people said that we should have given it a short charter, but we gave it one for 10 years. Some said we should not fund it through the licence fee, but we have, and we gave it a six-year licence fee deal. If it realises those efficiencies and if more and more households buy more and more licence fees—as predicted—the BBC will have £1.2 billion to invest in new services. That is a fair settlement between the interests of the BBC and the interests of the licence fee payer.

Linda Gilroy: Does the Secretary of State understand the concerns of people in Plymouth and Cornwall, which are respectively 120 and 200 miles away from Bristol, about the plans for ITV public service broadcasting and the cuts? That not only applies to commercial public sector broadcasting requirements; it could have a knock-on effect on the BBC and the quality and quantity of its programmes if it does not have competition from the commercial sector.

James Purnell: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. Indeed, she has campaigned strongly and effectively on the importance of the creative industries in Plymouth. Plymouth has one of the fastest-growing creative industry sectors in the country, so the campaigning is clearly paying dividends. That further underlines the vital role of our public service broadcasters as anchors of production throughout our country.

Jeremy Hunt: Does the Secretary of State agree that the broadcasting regulatory system is failing to work properly? What happened with quiz shows and competitions at BBC, ITV and Channel 4 over the summer clearly breached the broadcasting code. Yet that did not stop producers at all those channels contravening the code. What will the right hon. Gentleman do to make the broadcasting regulatory system work more effectively?

James Purnell: I agree that what happened was unacceptable. It is unacceptable for people to be cheated out of their money and for millions of phone calls to be made when people could not win. I have confidence in Ofcom and the way in which it is tackling the issue proactively. However, I have asked it to advise the House on whether the regulatory regime is robust enough. If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions to make to that review, we would be happy to hear them.

Jeremy Hunt: Is not the point that, if broadcasters have to be fined huge amounts of money, the system has already failed because viewers' trust has been compromised? Rather than more regulation, does the Secretary of State agree that we need better observance of existing regulations before trust in broadcasting is further eroded?

James Purnell: Clearly, that is important, but the issue is so serious that we should not simply rely on that cultural change. We should also consider whether the regulatory regime is robust enough, especially the boundaries between the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services—ICSTIS—which is now Phonepay Plus, and Ofcom, and make sure that we have the right approach to ensure that the problem does not happen again.

Jim Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend consider the impact, especially of staffing cuts, on BBC West Midlands, whether television or radio?

James Purnell: We have a well-established tradition in this country of the BBC being independent of Government. It would therefore be wrong for me to tell it where to employ its staff. We have given the BBC a fair and stable settlement, which provides a good platform for succeeding in the digital age.

Philip Davies: Does the Secretary of State agree that, in future, the BBC needs to do far less and that it should concentrate on providing public service media content where there is market failure?

James Purnell: I do not agree with the implication in the hon. Gentleman's question that the BBC should retreat to a public service ghetto. That happens in America and is not the right way forward for us. The BBC's task has always been to make the popular good and the good popular. That should remain its challenge in the 10 years to come.

Arts Funding

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: What the change has been in the level of arts funding since 1997.

Margaret Hodge: Funding for the arts has already increased by 73 per cent. in real terms—up from £186 million in 1997-98 to £412 million this year. The Government have shown strong and consistent support for the arts. Earlier this month, we announced that, over the next three years, the Arts Council will receive a funding increase of 3.3 per cent. above inflation, taking it to £467 million in 2010-11.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Dot to Dot is a community arts organisation that operates in a deprived part of my constituency. Its members are currently making costumes for the Hallowe'en happening for which I shall join them on Wednesday. Local people have also designed my Christmas card, which will go out to constituents this year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that funding such arts projects does a great deal for social regeneration in deprived areas and promotes community cohesion?

Margaret Hodge: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend that the funding of community arts projects not only raises the profile of the arts in her area but adds to community cohesion and regeneration. I am glad to see that the Arts Council's funding has now gone up in Portsmouth, and that more than £250,000 goes to arts organisations in her area.

Nigel Evans: I welcome any increase in the funding for the arts, not just in London but throughout the United Kingdom, and it is important that the arts are used as a showpiece for people visiting this country. Is it not therefore a shame that the Government have cut back on the grant to VisitBritain, thereby perhaps denying people abroad the opportunity of knowing what this country has to offer?

Margaret Hodge: I see the rather tenuous link between the issue of VisitBritain and this question. I would say to the hon. Gentleman in all seriousness that the way in which we attract visitors to the UK is partly through the heritage opportunities that are available, and partly through the arts and cultural opportunities. The increase in funding that we have been able to put into the arts and culture—and the opportunities that we will have to implement our commitment to the cultural Olympiad in particular—will improve the offer to visitors to this country.

Seaside and Coastal Towns (Heritage)

Gordon Marsden: What assessment he has made of the role of heritage in regenerating seaside and coastal towns; and if he will make a statement.

Margaret Hodge: English Heritage has carried out a detailed assessment showing how investment in heritage can support the regeneration of seaside and coastal towns. I welcome the publication of that report, which I understand was launched at a heritage conference in Hastings at which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) was present. We are working with colleagues across government to see how we can best respond to the challenges facing some of our seaside and coastal towns.

Gordon Marsden: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and, indeed, for the consistent interest that she has shown in seaside and coastal towns. The conference at which I was present, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster) and for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), made exactly those points. We in Blackpool have already benefited from a £50,000 feasibility study grant for the new theatre museum that we are anxious to see established. May I, however, press my right hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to see whether there are further ways in which heritage, which is a key issue in relation to regenerating seaside and coastal towns, might be supported and funded by the Department?

Margaret Hodge: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the consistent hard work that he has done to ensure that the regeneration of seaside and coastal towns has been kept at the forefront of the Government's concerns. He does not have to press me very hard on this. I know the importance to Blackpool of this type of opportunity, and we are examining every opportunity that we can think of—whether in arts and culture or in heritage—to try to help the regeneration of his constituency.

Douglas Carswell: Coastal towns such as Clacton-on-Sea in my constituency desperately need some sort of regeneration. What specific advice can the Minister give to local authorities to ensure that they help to deliver that regeneration?

Margaret Hodge: One of the ways in which English Heritage has worked well in the past—and which we want to explore further in the future—has involved giving some money to kick-start the regeneration in a particular coastal town, which brings in other public and private resources. I can give the hon. Gentleman some examples. In Great Yarmouth, £380,000 of Heritage Lottery Fund released £2 million of private sector investment in the area. In St. Annes, £121,000 of Heritage Lottery Fund released £3 million of public and private money. If local authorities were to look at this kind of partnership, they could go far with their regeneration projects. I have seen excellent examples throughout Great Britain of local authorities and heritage organisations finding a project that acts as a catalyst for regeneration in the area.

Michael Jabez Foster: My right hon. Friend is right to say that such a catalyst can often be found. In Hastings, the birthplace of television, the Baird project, run by Alastair Fairley and others, has recently brought jobs and opportunities to the town. Can the Minister suggest any funds that might be available to develop that kind of initiative?

Margaret Hodge: My hon. Friend has recently written to me about his constituency and I am considering the contents of his letter as we speak. I am also examining what further funds we can bring to coastal towns to help with their regeneration. There are already funds such as the heritage lottery fund, and the regional development agencies have considerable resources that they can bring to bear in these circumstances. There are also the local authorities, as the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell) pointed out. Corralling all those together, and encouraging private sector investment, is the way in which we can bring regeneration to our coastal towns.

Tobias Ellwood: It seems that tourism is not a priority for this Government. The Minister will know that under this Government's watch, more Britons are choosing to holiday abroad than ever before rather than going to our seaside towns, for example, and inbound visitor numbers are well below the international average. Does the Minister really believe that cutting VisitBritain's budget—a subject that she has refused to touch on so far—effectively slowing the engines that power Britain's fifth largest industry, is the way to maximise British tourism opportunities in the lead-up to the 2012 Olympics?

Margaret Hodge: The first thing is that the hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. The most recent figures for the three months up to August 2007 show an increase in the number of UK residents who choose to go abroad by 2 per cent.— [Interruption.]—sorry, I mean a decrease. Let us get it right; there has been a 2 per cent. decrease in the number choosing to go abroad. As to VisitBritain, we have asked for a strategic review of how we best use our resources to market the UK. Across the public sector, in excess of £350 million is being invested in marketing the UK. Some of it comes from VisitBritain, and a lot comes from regional development agencies and some from local authorities. We want to use that money smartly—and any responsible politician in a responsible Government would think it wholly appropriate to have a strategic review in order to ensure fit-for-purpose organisations for marketing the country at home and abroad.

Sandra Osborne: The Minister will understand that I am very disappointed that the Ailsa Craig-Girvan gateway project in my constituency was turned down for living landmarks Big Lottery Fund money. She has already pointed out the important role that these projects can play in regenerating seaside towns. This was a genuine community-led project. Given the amount of time, resources and money put into developing a business plan, what advice would my right hon. Friend give that group for securing alternative sources of funding?

Margaret Hodge: I am not aware of the details of the project to which my hon. Friend refers, but I would be happy to meet her to discuss the details and see whether we can find a way forward and help her meet the interests of her community.

National Museums and Galleries

Andrew Miller: If he will make a statement on the effect of the Comprehensive Spending Review on national museums and galleries.

James Purnell: I was delighted to announce on 12 October that grant-in-aid to our national museums and galleries will increase from £302 million this year to £332 million in 2010-11—an increase slightly above inflation. That investment in excellence means that free admission for all is guaranteed for a further three years.

Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend should be congratulated on the assiduous way in which he negotiated the Department's grant in the comprehensive spending review. May I ask him to focus his attention on the collection in the National Waterways museum and to use his good offices to ensure that the project continues in its three locations? The collections are defined by his own Department as being of national importance in their own contexts.

James Purnell: My hon. Friend has run a determined campaign on behalf of the museum in his constituency—and he was right to do so. I am delighted to be able to inform the House that, in addition to the extra funding already announced for national museums, we will continue to invest in our regional museums and galleries over the next three years with an inflation-proof settlement. That will mean that funding for the "renaissance in the regions" programme will increase from £45 million this year to more than £48.7 million in 2010-11. That will enable museums across England to revitalise their collections, reach new audiences and strengthen their educational work. As my hon. Friend noted, the National Waterways museum has a collection that has been designated as being of national importance. I hope that, in the light of the money that we are announcing today, the museum's dialogue with the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council will enable it to plan the future on a secure footing.

Kevan Jones: I welcome the funding. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the north-east regional museums hub on its tremendous work not just on increasing visitor numbers but on cross-working between museums in the north-east? Will he assure me that its good work, and the lessons that are being learned from the hub, can be used in other regions throughout the UK?

James Purnell: Yes, that is exactly what we want to do. We want to learn from the hub areas and spread that knowledge around the country. My hon. Friend raised the issue of funding the "renaissance in the regions" programme at the last Question Time. I hope that he welcomes our announcement. As he says, the hub areas have had an important impact. The number of people visiting local and regional museums has, we think, gone up from about 8 million to 14 million. That is a huge achievement, thanks to all the people who have been involved in the local and regional work that has been possible.

Seaside Resort Tourism

Adrian Sanders: If he will make a statement on the future of seaside resort tourism.

Margaret Hodge: My Department is committed to the future of all our seaside resorts. We are working with colleagues across Government to see how we can best respond to the challenges that some of them face. We will consider their future fully in the tourism strategic review that we have recently announced.

Adrian Sanders: Is not the answer here not just to help and develop tourism, but to look across Government at how we can bring together all the various regeneration pots of money and focus them on some of our larger seaside resorts that have had a poor show over the past 20 or 30 years? Will there be a commitment from the Government to do just that—to work across Government and focus support on coastal resort economies?

Margaret Hodge: I have an easy answer to that: I agree entirely with everything that the hon. Gentleman says. There is a commitment to work across Government in the way that he sets out.

OLYMPICS

The Minister for the Olympics was asked—

Diamond Jubilee

Andrew Rosindell: What preparations she has made to host the Olympics in a manner sympathetic to the Queen's diamond jubilee in 2012.

Tessa Jowell: The combination of the Queen's diamond jubilee and the Olympic games in 2012 was highly persuasive with the International Olympic Committee in awarding the bid to London. We are at the very early stages of discussion with the royal household, but meetings are held on a regular basis to make sure that every opportunity of the Olympics is taken to focus on the Queen's diamond jubilee, and vice versa. I expect that the whole House will hope that the royal family will be one of the many families in this country that brings home a gold medal after the games.

Andrew Rosindell: I thank the Minister for her reply. Does she agree, however, that because the diamond jubilee will be a great national celebration, it is important that the Olympic games do not overshadow that historic landmark in our nation's history? Does she also agree that millions of people who come for the Olympics in 2012 will appreciate the diamond jubilee celebrations and want to participate in them?

Tessa Jowell: There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that the Olympics will overshadow the diamond jubilee. When planning in the years up to that, we are determined to ensure that the diamond jubilee is a national celebration, followed by the Olympic games, which will be another national celebration.

Paul Farrelly: I am sure that nothing will be more sympathetic to the Queen than a good old patriotic fly-past. Will my right hon. Friend use this occasion to quash the ridiculous story that the Red Arrows have been barred from the opening ceremony of the Olympics?

Tessa Jowell: I can absolutely, unequivocally and categorically assure my hon. Friend that there is no truth whatsoever to that story. It was highly regrettable that in the face of the scale of denials from Lord Coe, who I understand took the trouble to e-mail every Member of Parliament, and the clear statement that there was no truth in the story, the party operation of the Opposition—Conservative central office—continued to try to get a campaign going. The important thing is that the Red Arrows—part of every national celebration—are also part of the Olympics. I want to see that happen.

James Gray: Would the Minister care to substantiate the remark that she has just made and give us one shred of evidence that, somehow or other, it was the Opposition who perpetuated the myth about the Red Arrows? That is quite untrue; she is misled on that point. The Leader of the Opposition has gone to great lengths to ensure, through his noble Friend the Conservative peer Lord Coe, that the Red Arrows will play a leading part in the Olympics.

Tessa Jowell: On the basis that I am given an absolutely categorical assurance that no attempt was made at any stage by Opposition Members to blow up this campaign and to exploit what everybody knew to be untrue, I am prepared to let the matter lie.  [ Interruption. ] I place on record that there is not and has never been any question of the Red Arrows somehow being prevented from taking part in the Olympic games opening ceremony.  [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Mackay, you are very fussy about the rules of the House, and you should apply them to yourself. Do not shout at the Minister when she is speaking. That is unfair.

British Achievements

Anne Begg: What steps she is taking to encourage the use of the opportunity presented by the Olympic Games in 2012 to celebrate a wide range of British achievements.

Tessa Jowell: As my hon. Friend knows, hosting the Olympic games and the Paralympic games in 2012 will put the whole of the UK at the centre of a global audience. The cultural olympiad that will begin with the closing ceremony in Beijing next year will be an opportunity to showcase world-class culture around the country. The games present an opportunity to provide a great boost to tourism across the UK. We hope to see a £2 billion boost to the value of tourism revenue and we must make sure that the tourism benefit outside London—to Scotland, Wales and the rest of the UK—is maximised. We have clear commitments in relation to the Olympic legacy, and by early next year we will publish a detailed plan showing how those big ambitions for the country will be realised.

Anne Begg: I am delighted to hear the Minister's reply, because as soon as the Olympics are mentioned, one thinks of sport; when the London Olympics are mentioned, one thinks of sport in London. I am not a huge fan of sport and am keen to ensure that everyone realises that there is more to the Olympics than just sport. People visiting with family members or sports teams will have opportunities to see some of the other things that are going on around Britain—in Scotland and elsewhere—that may not be necessarily geared towards a sporting audience. Will the Minister assure me that there will be as much emphasis on those activities as on the sport?

Tessa Jowell: I absolutely agree. The Olympics, the Paralympics and the Queen's diamond jubilee will all be national celebrations, as will the cultural olympiad. My hon. Friend would not want us to forget that a new regional centre of excellence for sport will open in Aberdeen shortly. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will also wish Glasgow the best of luck in the decision on the selection of the Commonwealth games venue, which is to be made in the next couple of weeks.

Humfrey Malins: The Minister will know that my constituency is the home of the National Rifle Association at Bisley, whose achievements over the years have been enormous. What can she do to encourage target pistol shooters to get in the practice within this country, so that they might succeed at the next Olympics, as we all want them to?

Tessa Jowell: Of course we do, and the hon. Gentleman will know about the detailed discussions taking place within Government and with the national governing body in this respect. The House will not need to be reminded that we have laws in place prohibiting the possession of handguns for competitive purposes because of the tragedy at Dunblane. Nothing that we do should in any way seek to compromise those commitments; I know that the hon. Gentleman would share my view on that. He will, I suspect, also be aware of some detailed discussions that are under way between the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and the national governing body about restricted access to particular sites so that pistol shooters can practise. Those negotiations are continuing. When they have concluded, I will report to the House.

Sally Keeble: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to ensure widespread participation in the 2012 games. What structures will she put in place so that towns and cities throughout the country can get the necessary information and participate in the business opportunities and cultural legacy as well as the sporting opportunities?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for her comment, and I pay tribute to her for her great efforts to ensure that even at this stage her constituents derive full benefit from participation in the Olympic games. In my visits to her constituency, it has been clear that in Northampton, enthusiasm for the games is very high. My hon. Friend is right, however: we must ensure that any lack of involvement is not the result of people not having access to the proper information. That is why the Olympic Delivery Authority has put in place a systematic way of informing businesses through electronic alerts about contracts that are open for tender. I am sure that businesses in her constituency will secure some of them. The website is open for people to register their interest in volunteering for the games, and through the nations and regions group every region of the country is developing its own Olympic plan. I know that the east midlands has some extremely good ideas—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the Minister there.

Tom Brake: The Minister will have seen the reports in today's press quoting Lord Moynihan as saying that there is room for improvement in the financial management of the games and a need for greater transparency. Does the Minister agree that if the budget issue is not tackled and there is not more transparency, it will not be possible to celebrate fully many of the achievements that we want to celebrate?

Tessa Jowell: With great respect to Lord Moynihan, I would point him to the recent reports of the National Audit Office and other experts. There has been assistance in the development of the budget and proper financial oversight. People must believe that their money is being properly spent—regardless of whether it comes from the lottery, the London council tax or the Exchequer—if we are to maintain public commitment and support for the games. I give the House an assurance that Members will receive regular periodic updates on the state of the budget, and I can give an absolute commitment to transparency and high-quality management of the Olympic budget. I do not, therefore, agree with Lord Moynihan on the points that he chose to make public.

Hugh Robertson: I was at the party conference when the Red Arrows issue was raised for the first time. Lord Coe made the position straightforward then, and I spoke to three journalists who phoned me afterwards and said there was no truth in the story. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will withdraw her remark and apologise for it.
	Lord Moynihan said that,
	"the Olympic board's ability to oversee the project is being restricted by a lack of financial detail being provided by the Government and the Olympic Delivery Authority".
	Those are very serious allegations. Will the Minister therefore confirm whether the three basic financial controls necessary for that oversight—an updated and clearly defined budget, a monthly cash-flow analysis, and a breakdown of the contingency fund allocated to specific projects—is available to each and every Olympic board? And if not, why not?

Tessa Jowell: The information is provided to the Olympic board at a point when the detailed work—and the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the level of scrutiny currently being carried out to test line by line the baseline budget I announced to the House back in March—[Hon. Members: "When will they know?"] When the work is complete, that will be available to the board, and the information will also be made available to the funders committee within Government before any further decisions are taken to release contingency. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to leap into print with his own allegations about, for instance, decisions on the release of contingency.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission , was asked—

Weekend General Elections

Gordon Marsden: What plans the Electoral Commission has to assess public support for weekend general elections.

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission informs me that it has no plans to assess public support for weekend general elections.

Gordon Marsden: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. I find it extraordinary that there are no such plans, given that the Government announced a review of this issue in their paper "The Governance of Britain", and given that the Electoral Commission itself published research in 2001 that showed that one fifth of people did not vote because of the inconvenience. Holding general elections on a Thursday has only been a convention in this country since 1935. Most other countries in Europe hold them at weekends and have good turnouts, so is it not time the Electoral Commission considered consulting public opinion on this, in the same way as the Government are going to consult local authorities?

Peter Viggers: The reason why the Electoral Commission has not put forward proposals itself is that it has noted the Government's proposal in the Green Paper "The Governance of Britain" for consultation on weekend voting, and intends to contribute to that, particularly in relation to the practicalities of such a move. The Electoral Commission has refocused its activities. It now focuses more on the practicalities and bones of voting, rather than on the theoretical matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised, which it regards rather as the matter of Government and of Parliament.

Andrew MacKay: May I put it to my hon. Friend that the Electoral Commission should be considering this issue, because the highest priority of all of us should surely be to increase the number of people voting? Just because elections have taken place on a Thursday since the 1930s does not mean that weekends should be ruled out. We should have an open mind, and it would be helpful to hear the results of any such survey.

Peter Viggers: There is indeed a consultation process in place. It was put forward by the Government in their paper "The Governance of Britain". The Electoral Commission is making its contribution to that process in its own specialist area, but it would urge everyone to contribute to the Government's consultation procedure on the subject.

David Taylor: If and when the Electoral Commission looks at other options for the selection of dates for general elections, perhaps it could conduct surveys in Paisley, Doncaster and Wakefield on the desirability of late autumn elections—one of which might have taken place on, say, 1 November or 8 November this year—and feed back the strong comments that might be made to the MPs for those areas, to inform better their future advice to No. 10.

Peter Viggers: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that if an election had taken place, it would have mattered very much whether it was on a Thursday or another day of the week. Fair points have been made during these exchanges. It is true that the larger number of European countries hold their elections on Sundays—and, of course, that some countries even have fixed-term elections. That, perhaps, would cover the hon. Gentleman's point.

David Heath: I think that many people would welcome a little research to support the view that there ought to be a relaxation of the rules governing election days, because there is nothing sacrosanct about Thursdays. While the Electoral Commission does that, it might also examine whether the national interest, or narrow party interest, is best served by refusing to have a fixed-term Parliament.

Peter Viggers: The hon. Gentleman is correct that there is nothing sacred about Thursdays for general elections, although the last election to take place on a weekend in this country was held on Saturday 14 December 1918. A number of practical implications are involved in switching away from a Thursday. The current legislation says that general elections must be held on weekdays, whereas local elections must be held on Thursdays. There is nothing sacrosanct about these rules, and the consultation procedure will no doubt throw up a number of different views.

George Young: As anybody who wants to vote by post can already do so, do we not need powerful reasons for moving away from the current arrangements?

Peter Viggers: It is true that a large number of people are used to voting on Thursdays and that that day has some practical advantages in terms of the timing during the week and the availability of local government staff. It is also true that postal and other voting systems have made voting easier now, and that there are fewer complaints about the availability of voting. However, the fact is that we have quite a low turnout at general elections in this country, and we should all be concerned about that.

Polling Stations (Siting)

Peter Bone: Whether the Electoral Commission has considered the merits of reviewing the rules on the siting of polling stations.

Peter Viggers: Responsibility to keep polling districts and places under regular review has been placed upon local authorities under the Electoral Administration Act 2006, which came into force on 1 January 2007. The Electoral Commission has issued guidance to local authorities, but it has no plans to review the rules.

Peter Bone: In the Croyland ward in my constituency, there are three polling districts: CA, CB and CC. There have been four elections in that ward since May 2005. In the two elections when there was a polling station in the CC district, CC topped the turnout or was second. In the other two elections, when there was no polling station in CC and people had to drive out of the estate on a very difficult route to vote, the turnout dropped by 53 per cent. Will the Electoral Commission consider making it compulsory to have a minimum of one polling station in each polling district?

Peter Viggers: As I pointed out, Parliament gave local authorities the responsibility for deciding on such matters. Given the detailed point that my hon. Friend has made, it is wise that local authorities should be responsible, because they have the specialist knowledge. If he has a complaint about the polling arrangements in his constituency, he should draw it to the attention of the local authority, which, as I have said, has that responsibility.

Andrew Love: May I ask my hon. Friend to consider strengthening the guidance given in two respects, the first of which is the distance that people have to walk? People have to walk a tremendous distance to some of the polling stations in my constituency, which is, of course, a deterrent to voting. The second issue is the use of temporary structures on sites that are convenient for people to go to. My local authority never seems to use any temporary structure, because of the cost involved. Could we give some guidance that would strengthen local authorities' ability to make it easy for people to vote?

Peter Viggers: May I say how grateful I am to the hon. Gentleman for extending his friendship to me—no doubt on the basis of our joint membership of the Treasury Committee? As with the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), it is very much a matter for the local authority to decide on such matters, and no maximum is specified for the distance between polling stations or the distance that individuals have to travel. That matter is left to the discretion of the local authority, which must take into account a number of issues, such as accessibility, ready visibility, disabled access and so on.

Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend not accept that it would be most undesirable if any polling station or ballot box was placed in superstores such as Tesco—an idea that has been put forward? Tesco has a big enough advantage as it is, without people being advised to go into those superstores, which undermines the small retail sector.

Peter Viggers: With his wide experience, my hon. Friend never ceases to have the ability to surprise me with his questions. I had not anticipated that one and will certainly look into it and discuss it with the Electoral Commission.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

VAT (Church Repairs)

Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions the commissioners have had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on VAT on church repairs.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I have been asked to reply—with your permission, Mr. Speaker—on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), who is recovering from a back operation. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in wishing him well.
	The commissioners have not met the Chancellor, but the Church Heritage Forum, on which they are represented, continues to explore with the Government how the contribution that churches and cathedrals make to the nation should be reflected in the funds that they receive from the state.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he convey our warmest wishes for a speedy recovery to the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell)?
	Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the cost to the taxpayer of administering grants from English Heritage puts a burden on the state, whereas reduced VAT—the subject of an ongoing campaign by me and many Members on both sides of the House—would actually help churches, bearing in mind that they have a particular role in rural constituencies such as Vale of York?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks, which I shall pass on to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough. I congratulate her on her work in trying to resolve church repairs issues, which are substantial in terms of the £100 million target. However, she will be pleased to know that to date £63 million has come from return of VAT, and that the scheme has been extended to 2011. I hope she recognises that the state is trying to do its bit, with the Church, to try to resolve some of the issues.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Any amount is gladly received, but as my hon. Friend knows, the situation has been going on for a long time. Many of the churches are mediaeval and need an enormous amount of upkeep, so can we come to a sensible conclusion quickly?

Gerry Sutcliffe: Again, I acknowledge the work that my hon. Friend has been doing on this issue and I am sure that she, too, will welcome the extension of the scheme to 2011. I shall ensure that her comments are passed to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, and I am sure that he will take them up with the Treasury.

Brian Binley: The hon. Gentleman may not know that lead and copper thefts from churches are increasing sizeably. In Northamptonshire alone, 10 such cases occurred in September, causing £200,000-worth of damage. In many cases, insurance does not cover the repairs, so will the hon. Gentleman consider VAT relief in that respect when he addresses the issue?

Gerry Sutcliffe: Of course those thefts are regretted; it causes much inconvenience and cost to churches when such things occur. I am a little hesitant to make any commitments for my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough at this stage, but I shall pass the hon. Gentleman's comments to him.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport , representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Minimum Voting Age

John Robertson: What assessment the Electoral Commission has made of lowering the qualifying age of voting from 18 to 16 years as a means of increasing turnout at elections.

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission's 2004 report, "Age of Electoral Majority", concluded that there was insufficient justification for reducing the voting age to 16. The commission informs me it has no plans to make a new assessment of the case for lowering the voting age.

John Robertson: I am somewhat disappointed in the hon. Gentleman's answer. Politicians are regularly chastised—justifiably so, in some cases—for not engaging with people, in particular young people. Would not lowering the age from 18 to 16 help to engage those young people, not just in local politics but in politics in general, or does the hon. Gentleman think it would just increase the number of people who do not vote?

Peter Viggers: I am grateful for the chance to add that the 2004 report produced by the Electoral Commission said that the commission would revisit the case for lowering the voting age within five to seven years. Following its recent refocus on the twin objectives of regulating party and election finance and delivering well-run elections, the commission is unlikely to proceed with such a review. The Electoral Commission takes the view that it is for Government and Parliament to consult and decide on such matters.

Simon Hughes: Is not it much more likely that young people would engage in the process if, when they left school at 16, they were registered to vote as part of a graduation ceremony at which they were given their civic rights and responsibilities? If so, would it not be logical that they should have the vote from that time, when they are free to work, able to pay taxes and free to join the services?

Peter Viggers: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that was well aired during discussions on the subject. When the Electoral Commission looked at the issue in some detail in 2004, it came to the conclusion, taking account of facts such as those cited by the hon. Gentleman, that it was not appropriate to recommend a reduction in voting age.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The  hon. Member for  Middlesbrough , representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Fatal Accidents (Gravestones)

John Mann: How many people have been killed by falling gravestones in church graveyards in the last 20 years.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The number is not recorded centrally but I understand from the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group, which insures almost all Church of England churches, that it has received no claims relating to such fatalities in the last 10 years—the period for which figures are available.

John Mann: Why is it, then, that hundreds of thousands of gravestones across the country are being staked, as if they were a health and safety risk? Across the country, only two deaths have been caused by gravestones in the past 28 years. Should we not investigate precisely why local authorities and churches are taking such an absurd decision?

Gerry Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend raises a fair point, which I will take up with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough.

UK BORDERS BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(7) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the UK Borders Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 5th February 2007 (UK Borders Bill (Programme)):
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. —[Ms Diana R. Johnson.]
	 Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

UK Borders Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 5
	 — 
	Registration regulations

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Liam Byrne: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 6.

Liam Byrne: The amendments can be put into three packages. They are to do with the way in which identity cards are issued and, if necessary, surrendered. I am particularly grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which helped us to get amendments on that subject straight. Lords amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 6 seek to address concerns that that Committee expressed about the way in which we proposed delegating powers to the Secretary of State. The amendments give a much sharper definition of when the Secretary of State may cancel cards, and when the individual must notify the Secretary of State of changes in circumstances. The amendments are designed to mirror the Identity Cards Act 2006 slightly more closely than the original drafting did. Effectively, in place of the suspension that was originally proposed, the Secretary of State may now require surrender, while considering cancelling the card.
	Lords amendment No. 2 is also designed to meet a concern expressed by the Committee. The Committee made it clear that the Secretary of State's power needed to be bound slightly more than was proposed in the draft Bill. The amendment simply confines the Secretary of State's power to a power to require immigration and nationality documents to be surrendered. Importantly, when biometric immigration documents are issued, the amendment will allow us to bleed insecure documents out of the system.
	Finally, amendments Nos. 4 and 5 simply remove references to the necessity for a code of practice governing the way in which authorised persons should issue biometric immigration documents. Frankly, I think that the original Bill—this is probably my fault—went over the top a little bit. There is no equivalent provision in the Identity Cards Act, and there is no such provision for biometric visas. I did not feel that that discrepancy could be justified. Instead, we propose to publish guidance on the subject to which people must adhere. It will be tested a little later on, next year. I commend the amendments to the House.

Damian Green: Broadly speaking, we welcome the group of amendments. It is always good to hear a Minister in this Government admit the possibility of error in a previous part of the legislative process. We called for amendment No. 2, so we are particularly pleased to see it, but I have some questions. Hopefully the Minister can provide clarification about the effects of the group of amendments. In general, we are pleased that the previous catch-all subsections have been removed. The Minister will be aware that there were objections, both in Committee and in another place, about the sweeping powers that Ministers gave themselves under a previous version of the legislation. The removal of those powers is a welcome step forward.
	My questions are about exactly how the biometric information documents fit into the Minister's scheme for a national identity register. One of the things that their lordships found most confusing in the explanations in the Lords was whether those documents are the identity card for foreigners. If so, do the documents contain the same biometric information that UK citizens will be expected to provide under this wretched scheme? Of course, we would scrap the scheme, but let us proceed with the legislation on the basis that it might be introduced one day.
	The other clarification that we require from the Minister concerns the appeal mechanisms available to people whose documents have been removed. Such an action could be disastrous for people in those circumstances, so it is fair for the House to ask whether this group of amendments entails a decent and fair appeal mechanism. On the same lines, is it correct to presume that someone whose documents have been removed for one of the reasons set out in the amendments would be immediately removed from this country? I am sure that, like me, the Minister has studied carefully the very good debates in another place, both in Grand Committee and on Report, so he will know that their lordships were genuinely confused about that matter. I hope that in this broadly welcome group of amendments he will therefore take the opportunity to clear up the remaining confusion about those issues.

David Heath: First, it is proper that I should pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) and my noble Friend Lord Avebury for their work on the Bill. May I commend, too, Lord Hilton, who is a constituent of mine? He is a Cross Bencher, so does not speak on behalf of my party, but he played a significant role in the Bill's consideration in another place.
	I certainly do not intend to urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the amendments, which we broadly support. Like the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), I should like to receive further details about the interrelationship between the documents and the identity card. I am amused by the vehemence with which the Conservatives dismissed ID cards, having voted for them in the first instance, but we must set that issue aside.

Damian Green: rose—

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is about to tell me that he voted against ID cards.

Damian Green: Indeed; I should put on record once again the fact that even when my party was misguidedly in favour of identity cards, I voted against them, and I am delighted that a greater wisdom has now settled on my party.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—he at least is consistent even if all around him inconsistency reigns supreme.
	May I address a minor point raised by Lords amendment No. 3, and urge the Minister to spend a little time explaining to the House the issue of the Secretary of State's state of mind when those decisions are made? Each consideration that the Secretary of State must make is couched in similar terms. Proposed new paragraph (a), for example, says that a document can be cancelled if
	"the Secretary of State thinks that the information provided in connection with the document was or has become false, misleading or incomplete".
	In proposed new paragraphs (a) to (f), it is perfectly proper to use the words,
	"if the Secretary of State thinks that",
	because the Secretary of State must form a reasonable view, but I question their use in proposed new paragraphs (g),(h),(i),(j) and (k). Is it not writing into statute an admission on the Government's part of just how incompetent the Department has become? It suggests that the Secretary of State thinks that "the holder has died" or that they have
	"been removed from the United Kingdom (whether by deportation on otherwise)".
	The Secretary of State does not know whether someone has been deported, but thinks that they might have been, so will cancel the relevant documents. I would prefer a little more certainty in that Executive area. I accept that that is a forlorn hope, given the nature of the Department, but it is not unreasonable to expect a deportation to have taken place or an order to have been made. That is preferable to the pious expectation on the part of the Secretary of State that something might have happened. It might not have happened—who cares?—we will take the documents anyway.
	I am sorry if that observation sounds flippant, but it is based on reality. The Government's record on deportations, and on assessing someone's leave to enter and knowing whether they have retained the leave to enter or to remain, is not a good one. I would expect the statute to be framed in terms of greater certainty, so I would welcome the Minister's observations on that specific point.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful for those observations and for the opportunity to clarify one or two points. The relationship with ID cards is fairly simple to spell out. The technical infrastructure on which the cards will be issued is the same infrastructure as will underpin biometric visas, biometric immigration documents and, in turn, ID cards for British citizens, which is why it is difficult to propose shutting down bits of the system without affecting the integrity of some pretty important border controls, including biometric visas, with which Opposition parties profess to agree. Biometric immigration documents can be designated under the terms of the Identity Cards Act. Obviously, in their original issue they will not be so designated, but that will be possible in future, and cardholders will come under the protections that become available to people under that Act.
	The cards themselves will be the same technical design as we propose for ID cards for British citizens, which is two fingerprints and a facial image on a chip on the card, and 10 fingerprints and a facial image on the national identity register. The hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) makes a good point about the appeal mechanisms that are required if somebody's card is cancelled. In effect, when a person's leave to remain is cancelled at the same time as a biometric immigration document, or if the application for leave is refused, the person will be able to appeal through the existing system before the asylum and immigration tribunal, and where there is no right of appeal the individual can bring a judicial review under the usual principles.
	With regard to the belt-and-braces approach to the drafting of the legislation, I have said on the record that the way in which our systems for counting people in and out of the country were phased out was a mistake, and all of us bear some culpability for that decision, but we need to reintroduce such systems, which will give us a degree of control that we do not have today. That will mean, I hope, that these provisions become obsolete, but at the moment I hope that I will be forgiven for saying that a belt-and-braces approach is quite valuable.

Damian Green: I am grateful for the Minister's kind remarks. I was not quite clear from what he said whether the particular biometrics on the document will be exactly the same as he proposes to put on the ID cards and the ID register for British citizens.

Liam Byrne: That is the intention, yes. I commend the amendments to the House.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments  Nos.  2 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7
	 — 
	Effect of non-compliance

Lords amendment: No. 7.

Liam Byrne: I beg to move, that this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	In Committee, we had a useful and at times passionate debate about the need for the Border and Immigration Agency to step up to its responsibilities to keep children safe from harm, and this is not an unrelated area. It is increasingly important to ensure that the identity of children in the immigration system is well understood and locks down. That is why we propose to issue biometric immigration documents to those people under 18 in the immigration system .
	As the House will know, the ambition in the policy is for all foreign nationals to be compelled to have such a card in time. With any system of compulsion, however, there is the unfortunate necessity of a sanction for non-compliance. It is not a reasonable proposition to introduce the sanctions that we have debated in order to take action against children, and we therefore propose a designated adult as the alternative. We will seek to make the adult aware of that responsibility, and there is, of course, the comfort that if a civil penalty is imposed, the adult can object or, indeed, appeal. The amendment seeks to close a gap in the operation of the civil penalty regime.

John Gummer: The Minister is distinguished by the courtesy with which he has dealt with these matters. He has mentioned that when there is compulsion, there is unfortunately always a need to have some recourse. Given that we are dealing with children as well as adults, will he explain why the courtesies have been removed from the border arrangements in all those circumstances and why there is no question of asking anybody anything? There are no pleases or thank yous, and the whole process has become peremptory. Is that not a bad thing, particularly when we are dealing with children?

Liam Byrne: I spend a good deal of my week visiting our ports and airports—I hope to go to Portsmouth tomorrow, and I was at Stansted a week or two ago. Border and Immigration Agency staff are a courteous bunch, and for those who travel internationally, as I used to—sadly, that is no longer the case—the courtesy of our welcome is good compared with others. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman were to point out specific examples, I would be happy to investigate them, because the courtesy of our welcome is long-established and important to preserve.

John Gummer: The courtesy of the staff is unfailing; the notices are much more discourteous than they were—they are peremptory and many would say rude—and this is a good opportunity to change that.

Liam Byrne: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I will re-examine those notices, most of which were authorised by me, and consider precisely how they are written.
	I will not dwell on the amendment at length. The Government are seeking to close a gap in the legislation, and I commend the amendment to the House.

Damian Green: Again, I have no objections in principle to the amendment, but I seek clarification from the Minister. The amendment would
	"designate an adult as the person responsible for ensuring that a child complies with the requirements of the regulations".
	I am genuinely unsure who the Minister means by a "designated adult". Would that include a foster carer? I am sure that he, like me, has met many people who have been foster carers and who therefore deserve our admiration and support, which is particularly true of those who take in unaccompanied children who have come to this country. Such children may not speak the language; they may have experienced trauma in their lives; and they may experience difficulties in adjusting to a new society. Will the Minister clarify whether the "designated adult" could be a foster carer? If so, and if the child were involved in an infringement, would the adult be in any way responsible, as the amendment suggests, and would that "designated adult" be subject to penalties, which would give rise to even greater difficulties than those we face at the moment in persuading people to become foster carers?
	Secondly, I want to ask the same question in a different context. If the designated adult were appointed to represent an individual child by the local authority in a legal case involving adoption or another matter involving children, would the sanctions apply to that individual child only, in which case what is the point of designating the adult? As it stands, the amendment is confusing; it does not appear to achieve anything very much. If my second assumption is right and the designated adult mentioned is a guardian appointed by the court, I should say that there are only so many courts to go around and they are extremely hard-pressed at the moment. If added work and pressure are to be put on the court system, there may well be resource implications—in respect of not only asylum-seeking children, but children generally.
	Such examples are hypothetical, but they go to the heart of what is not clear in the amendment. I should be grateful if the Minister cleared that up.

David Heath: I shall also raise the issue addressed by the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green). Designation is fine when there is an appropriate designated person; if a parent or adult guardian enters the country with the child, there will be no difficulty in identifying who should be the designated person. However, I should be grateful for a small explanation from the Minister of how a designation would be made on the entering into the country of an unaccompanied child or a child unaccompanied by any obvious adult who may properly be said to have care and control over them. Would a person from the local authority be designated, or would there be children without a designated adult for that purpose?
	I should like to make a brief observation about the intervention made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). The Minister says that in his current role he does not travel abroad often; I fully understand that, as he has a lot to deal with here. Perhaps he has never visited some of the southern states of the US. The United States has always been notorious for their rather unhelpful immigration process. However, if the Minister visited Dallas Fort Worth airport, he would see a welcome innovation that we might consider. Volunteers—normally of retirement age; people who give their time freely—walk up and down the queues at immigration control to proffer support and help and ensure that the forms are filled in correctly and that people are queuing in the right places. Those volunteers give a genuinely warm welcome on behalf of the state of Texas. We might consider such an idea for some of our busier airports.

John Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the courtesy of the people at the desks has also improved? The only trouble is that such people wish to chat with the travellers. I was lectured for some time on the subject of global warming from the Bush point of view, and wondered whether it was immoral of me not to argue because I wanted to get through. Perhaps I should have had a proper debate.

David Heath: That is a real dilemma. The experiences are still variable; despite my possible future best interests, I am not here to sing the praises of US immigration control staff. However, easing if possible people's passage into a country and reassuring them that they are doing the right thing in what are a difficult few moments—or few hours, sometimes—would be worth considering as a model to emulate. I commend it to the Minister.

Liam Byrne: I consider every couple of weeks the arrangements between BAA, the Border and Immigration Agency and other partners, and I must confess that we have not yet got the reception arrangements entirely right. I am not sure that BAA contractors have quite matched the service that the hon. Gentleman has observed at Dallas Fort Worth.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) for the opportunity to clarify this point and glad that he agrees with the principle. He will remember from debates in Committee that the code of practice that will need to be set alongside the implementation of the civil penalty regime will be subject to public and other scrutiny. This is one of the most important questions on which we will need to consult as regards that code. It is possible that parents could be designated, but so could permanent carers, relatives with parental responsibility for children in their care, or guardians. Of course, before we seek to draft the code we will consult local authorities and child exploitation and online protection teams, as well as Government and non-Government agencies. I hope that the House will see the results of that consultation fully reflected in the code that we put to it for consideration.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 8
	 — 
	Use and retention of information

Lords amendment: No. 8.

Liam Byrne: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 15.

Liam Byrne: There are two packages of amendments in this group: Nos. 8 and 14 and Nos. 9 to 15, excluding No. 14. I will take each in turn.
	Amendments Nos. 8 and 14 are designed to define exactly what the Home Secretary can do with the information, specifically biometric information, that is retained. Hon. Members will remember that we had a wide-ranging and important debate on this in Committee, where I was very sympathetic to many of the arguments that were made. There was assent in all quarters that the rather blanket powers that we were proposing to put in the hands of the Home Secretary could, under some circumstances, be a little problematic. Opposition Members tabled helpful amendments seeking to bind that power a little more tightly. I had concerns about how some of them were phrased, particularly in relation to prerogative powers, so I undertook to go away and come back with a better package, as I have sought to do. I think that the purposes that we have set out comprise a good list that touches on some of the points that were acknowledged as important on both sides of the Committee, including the possibility of retaining such information for the purposes of crime protection, immigration control, national security and nationality. Those issues were all raised, and I hope that the House will see them adequately reflected in the amendments, which also preserve the common law powers whereby the Home Secretary already has to share data.

Stewart Hosie: I broadly agree with the Minister. The previous drafting basically allowed the Home Secretary to do anything he or she liked with the information. The new provisions are slightly tighter in relation to immigration, borders and nationality, until we get to paragraph (f), which contains the phrase:
	"for such other purposes...as the regulations may specify."
	Can the Minister give us a little comfort by confirming that the initial drafting of the regulations will be tight and that it is not the intention to return to what we had in the original Bill?

Liam Byrne: That is an important point. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that comfort. We were merely conscious of the fact that because identity fraud is a fast-moving area, it is necessary to have a degree of flexibility, subject to the order-making provisions in the Bill, to ensure that we do not have to keep coming back to the House to ask for primary legislation.

David Heath: Although I accept that this is a fast-moving area, the provisions must be related to an offence. If not related to an offence, they must be concerned with national security or one of the other issues laid down in previous provisions. It is a little difficult to understand why the Minister feels the need for such a wide provision in the final subsection.

Liam Byrne: I suppose that the fault to which I am confessing is that I am not perfectly clear sighted about what the future will bring. Organised crime is at work and the nature and design of crime is changing in this area, which is why we could require further provisions. Rather than having to come back to the House to keep asking for different bits of primary legislation, we may need to preserve the possibility that different functions need to be added subject to the scrutiny arrangements in the Bill.

Jim Cunningham: I was not on the Committee that dealt with the Bill, but where are we in relation to the Schengen proposals of about 10 years ago?

Liam Byrne: We are still outside the Schengen agreement, and while it remains difficult to see how effective policing of Europe's external border could keep this country safe, that is a position we propose to preserve.
	The second package of amendments is important because it provides an extra layer of protection for biometric information. That was the intention of the original clause, but it was not clear enough. There are already protections in place for biographical information, principally the Human Rights Act, especially article 8, and the Data Protection Act 1998. There are parliamentary precedents for additional protection for biometric information—specifically the need to set out when destruction of biometric information should be undertaken. Our plan is to set out regulations on the retention and destruction of information in this area. There is a carve-out for cases where biometric information is shared with agencies such as the police. In such cases, the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act provide the requisite protection. It would be difficult for the Secretary of State to be responsible for the destruction by the police of biometric information shared with them.
	These largely tidying-up amendments are designed to give a clearer expression to our original intentions, and I commend them to the House.

Damian Green: While we are all telling anecdotes about border services, I would like to add that the last time I flew through New York, about 12 months ago, the service was not just exemplarily polite but rather quicker than what I experienced going through Heathrow as a UK citizen. On one of the last occasions that I flew through Heathrow, a group of American tourists were wandering through, about to enter Britain when they did not want to because they were trying to transfer flights. I looked at the signage and I could see why they were in the queue to get into the country; it was worded in such a way that they would never have assumed that they could go the way they were supposed to. As a final point, the person who looked at my passport was not wearing one of the Minister's new uniforms, so they are not universal yet.

David Davies: While we are still on anecdotes, has my hon. Friend noticed the sort of thing that I have experienced, where the queue for non-European Union residents is almost zero while UK and EU residents have to queue for long periods of time? Perhaps there is an argument for ensuring that citizens of Great Britain can get back into their own country without having to queue a lot longer than those who come from outside even the EU.

Damian Green: I will leave the Minister to deal with my hon. Friend, who makes his point with characteristic clarity.
	I would like to extend the point made about the Schengen agreement. The Minister has helpfully confirmed that the Government will not sign up to it. Will he also confirm that the Government will maintain our position on the Commission's blue card proposal, and that they have no intention of giving up our reservation on that?
	As the Minister correctly said, Conservative Members expressed a great deal of anxiety throughout earlier debates about the catch-all quality that the measure would grant the Home Secretary. In so far as the powers are now less all-embracing, we welcome the step forward. Again, several questions have arisen during the Bill's passage through both Houses, which Ministers have not yet answered. I hope that the Minister can do that now, in the last knockings of our proceedings.
	My first question relates to the use of documents in the proposed national identity register. When the information is destroyed—for which the group of amendments would provide—will it be removed altogether from the national identity register? If the intention is to destroy sensitive personal information, it will be more reassuring for those to whom it refers to know that no traces of it exist anywhere on a register, which many of us believe will be a honeypot to hackers, and a principal target of global attack by hackers who may have nefarious purposes, such as fraud, in mind.
	My second question is about the spread of information around Departments. The national identity register is a compendium of three different Government computer systems—if they all talk to each other. That is a large assumption, but I shall make it for the purposes of the debate. Is it the intention to add the new biometric information to all three systems that will form the national identity register? What tests have been conducted to ensure that that is technically possible? I appreciate that those are technical questions about the future, but the Minister will understand the thrust of the point: even though he has restricted the Home Secretary's powers, which is good, genuine, serious questions remain about the proposal's practicality. I hope that he can tackle them.

David Heath: I do not want to add a great deal to the comments that I made in my interventions. It would be churlish, to use a fine parliamentary phrase, to complain about a move in the right direction by the Minister in Lords amendment No. 8. It is better to have some rather than no specificity about the purposes for which the information can be used. However, I still find proposed new paragraph (f) difficult because it appears to open the door to any further thought that a future Home Secretary—or the current Home Secretary in the regulations—might have about extending the purposes for which the information could be used. I strongly argue that the list in proposed new paragraphs (a) to (e) is comprehensive and covers the proper use of the information that is to be held.
	The Minister says that he cannot foresee future developments in criminal behaviour. Of course he cannot—none of us can. One problem is that we are always running to catch up with new developments, especially in identity fraud offences. However, we can be sure that any nefarious activity will occur in relation to prevention, investigation or prosecution of an offence, nationality or national security. It is therefore unnecessary to include a further proviso which falls outwith all the previous provisions. My concern is not sufficient to argue that hon. Members should reject the amendment, but it poses the question why the Minister insists on retaining the remaining catch-all provision. The more definition he can give as to how he will not use proposed new paragraph (f), the more satisfied we will be that there is no potential or real threat of extending the use of information into quite different areas that we might find entirely inappropriate.

Liam Byrne: I should like to put the mind of the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) at rest. I am not sure whether they are ideas or proposals from Commissioner Frattini about the blue card scheme, but we certainly have no intention of joining those proposals, and I suspect that we shall not be alone among the European member states in striking that position.
	Let me pick up on the three points of substance that were raised in the debate. The first was an important point about whether destruction would effectively mean destruction. The answer is yes. Of course, that will be set out in slightly longer sentences when the regulations are introduced. As the House will know, those regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so I hope that there will be an opportunity for a longer debate on the matter. For the purposes of this afternoon, however, I hope that that underlining will be sufficient.
	On the question of sharing information, the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) tempts me. He knows that my background is in the technology business. I shall try not to detain the House for hours and hours—although I happily could—about the system architecture that we proposed in the strategic action plan published last December. In a nutshell, the system will effectively link together an existing Government database called CIS, which is a repository of biographical information, and a new database that will contain the biometric information. That will allow us to hard-wire a link between a single biographical record and a single biometric record. There are some pretty strong safeguards around duplication.

Stewart Hosie: We have already debated the question of access from a remote site to check the central database, once the eyes or the face of a person have been scanned where a transaction is taking place. Is the Minister suggesting that the two separate repositories will be hard-wired together, or will they be merged into a single repository to allow that checking to happen?

Liam Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I know that you will be careful not to let me go back over the strategic action plan, which provided the answer to that question in 30 pages last December. However, I will happily send another copy of it to the hon. Gentleman by way of explanation, if I may.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made an important point, and I can give him some comfort, although I am not sure that I can wholly satisfy him. Proposed new paragraph (f) contains the phrase:
	"for such other purposes (whether in connection with functions under an enactment or otherwise) as the regulations may specify."
	The Secretary of State already has common law powers relating to the way in which information may be shared with other parts of the Government, and they are subject to the safeguards set out in the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act 1998. This area is therefore not protection-free; there are some quite important protections already in place. The provision is designed to ensure that those common law powers are not diminished. The only comfort I can give the hon. Gentleman is to underline the point that it refers to functions
	"under an enactment or otherwise".
	There is a functional specification in the list, which creates some boundaries, but the principal purpose of the measure is, in effect, to preserve the status quo—namely, the power that the Home Secretary already has to share information with others. I commend the Lords amendments to the House.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 1 6 agreed to.

Clause 19
	 — 
	Points-based applications: no new evidence on appeal

Lords amendment: No. 17.

Liam Byrne: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 18.

Liam Byrne: These are technical amendments, for which I am grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In the Bill as drafted, we sought to make some changes in the way that evidence was submitted once the points-based system was in place. In particular, we wanted to avoid the nonsense of having late evidence provided at the last minute. We sought to introduce the changes in the immigration rules, but the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made the helpful point that we were looking in the wrong place to introduce those rules. In fact, powers relating to rules about the presentation of evidence to the asylum and immigration tribunal should be exercised by the Lord Chancellor, not the Home Secretary. The amendment is thus designed to correct the legislation on that point. The key phrases in question will now be defined in AIT procedure rules made by the Lord Chancellor, not in immigration rules made by the Home Secretary. I commend the amendment to the House.

Damian Green: This group—and, indeed, the previous group—provides a welcome step forward in clarification. In respect of the previous group, a degree of parliamentary scrutiny can be provided. I have sat on many Public Bill Committees in which scrutiny is batted back and forth. It is always good when we get to the end of the procedure and Ministers admit that some degree of parliamentary scrutiny is quite useful and that it should apply beyond the original point where the Bill is passed and should also apply to regulations or, in this case, codes of practice that are introduced as a result of legislation.
	My noble Friends in the other place were particularly keen for this power to be vested in the Lord Chancellor rather than the Home Secretary, which was also recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I am glad that the Government have acceded to this change. As the Minister says, it is a technical change, but it improves this small corner of the Bill.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendment No. 18 agreed to.
	A New Clause

Children

Lords  a mendment proposed: No. 19.
	"Children
	(1) The Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice designed to ensure that in exercising functions in the United Kingdom the Border and Immigration Agency takes appropriate steps to ensure that while children are in the United Kingdom they are safe from harm.
	(2) The Agency shall—
	(a) have regard to the code in the exercise of its functions, and
	(b) take appropriate steps to ensure that persons with whom it makes arrangements for the provision of services have regard to the code.
	(3) The code shall come into force in accordance with provision made by order of the Secretary of State; and an order—
	(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and
	(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
	(4) The Secretary of State shall from time to time review and, if necessary, revise the code; and subsection (3) applies to a revision as to the original code.
	(5) In this section—
	(a) "the Border and Immigration Agency" means—
	(i) immigration officers, and
	(ii) other officials of the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State, in respect of functions relating to immigration, asylum or nationality, and
	(b) "child" means an individual who is less than 18 years old."

Liam Byrne: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Damian Green: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 10, at end insert—
	'(c) record in documentation when staff and the Agency depart from the code
	and the reasons for such departure, and
	(d) inform the Office of the Children's Commissioner in the relevant constituent part of the United Kingdom on each occasion when it has departed from the code.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, in line 25, at end add—
	'(6) (a) This section shall come into effect six months after the day on which this Act is passed.
	(b) During the time specified in subsection (6)(a) the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations as he considers appropriate on the contents of the code.'.

Damian Green: We have some difficulties with amendment No. 19, which their lordships have proposed. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and I have tabled amendments (a) and (b), which deal with the treatment of children. I am sure that all those who participated in debates on the Bill throughout its various stages will agree that the treatment of children has been the most sensitive and difficult issue, and the one on which, quite rightly, we have spent most time.
	The Government's response to the widespread criticism of their original proposals, not just from Opposition parties, but from the many bodies that devote their lives to helping children in vulnerable positions, is amendment No. 19 and the decision to issue a code of practice, which according to the Bill seeks to ensure that the Border and Immigration Agency takes steps
	"to ensure that while children are in the United Kingdom they are safe from harm."
	The Minister will be aware that many of the groups in the Refugee Children's Consortium regard that as inadequate because it simply is not good enough in terms of the duties and responsibilities that any Government have towards children in this country. The Opposition also believe that it is inadequate if we are to fulfil that important purpose, hence amendments (a) and (b), which would provide extra protection, in as much as we can influence the Bill.
	The key is what duties should be imposed on the BIA when it comes into contact with children, as it sadly frequently does. Our original argument in an earlier debate concentrated on section 11 of the Children Act 2004, which imposes on public bodies a greater duty of care for children in their hands than the Government are prepared to accept in the Bill. Ministers in both Houses argued consistently that if they did that, it would be impossible for immigration officers to do their job properly. Instead, we now have the code of practice, which does not incorporate the section 11 duty to promote the welfare of children. That places a weaker duty on Government agencies than the duty that relates to indigenous children in England and Wales. The Government are not conferring any explicit statutory safeguarding duty for the BIA in the Bill. Although the amendment makes the Bill better, I do not, to quote the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), wish to be churlish, but it is still not good enough.
	The Government have argued consistently that any attempt to impose section 11 would restrict the primary function of the immigration service. Indeed, a Minister said that any such duty would
	"severely compromise our ability to maintain an effective asylum system and strong immigration control". —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 2004; Vol. 662, c. 996.]
	I imagine that the Minister for Borders and Immigration will respond that way again today.
	That assertion, however, has been tested during the Bill's passage through both Houses and has been found wanting. No one disputes that the primary function of the immigration service is to ensure effective immigration control. Indeed, we have made many proposals that would improve the effectiveness of that control. However, other Government agencies also have a different primary function and they are still included in the duty under section 11. That does not appear to have had a negative impact on their performance. The Minister will be well aware that the police have a similar duty. I have never heard Ministers argue that the police cannot exercise their proper central functions while having regard to the constraint of section 11. The police, much more than immigration officers, must take control of situations daily where the immediate welfare of a child, who may well be committing an act of violence, may be compromised. That immigration officers cannot fulfil their duties while obeying the constraints of section 11 is one of the Government's weaker arguments.
	The specific duty of care is not contradictory to the primary function; it simply qualifies the manner in which that primary function is exercised. The explanatory notes to the Act state that the duty is intended to ensure that agencies are conscious of the need to safeguard children and to promote their welfare in the course of exercising their normal functions. That is a key witness in the Government's argument. The Minister will be aware that the Refugee Children's Consortium has taken legal advice, which suggests that section 11 would not prevent the Home Secretary from implementing the removal directions for a child or for his or her family and would at most affect the manner in which the removal occurred.
	The Minister will be aware that no one on this side of the House would wish to compromise the ability of the immigration service to perform acts such as the removal of those who should not be in this country, but unless the Minister can produce alternative and contradictory legal advice, Ministers ought to take some comfort that they could proceed in the manner that they have consistently rejected throughout the Bill's passage. I am sure that the Bill should be enhancing child safety and the Government recognised that by tabling their own amendment and by producing the code of practice, which is now before the House. It is a matter of great regret that Ministers have not taken the next step forward and agreed to incorporate section 11.
	On the code of practice, which is specifically mentioned in the amendment, the Minister will be aware of controversy in the other place when the code was introduced, simply because it appeared to be placed in the Library about 20 minutes before their lordships were due to debate it. A number of my hon. and noble Friends said that that was shoddy and, frankly, not the way in which they should be treated. I have a degree of sympathy with that.
	At least we in this House have had time to read the code of practice, which is still in draft form, so there is still a chance to influence it. We are concerned that the code of practice does not reflect the full spirit of section 11 and I seek to obtain further assurances from the Minister. He will know that amendment (a) concerns the recording of information about when the BIA or its contractors has departed from the code of practice. We believe that recording is essential to monitor the implementation of the code and, in particular, to contribute to the culture change in the BIA that the Minister has consistently said he wants to see.
	I do not suppose that anyone wants the procedure to be long and bureaucratic, but one thing it must be is transparent, which is why we have said that the information should be made available to the Office of the Children's Commissioner. It is also vital that this requirement is rolled out across the whole of the BIA as part of its normal training programme and not just to those areas where children are dealt with most frequently or where a breach is most likely to occur.

Stewart Hosie: I have a lot of sympathy with the points being made and I understand the requirement to record breaches in the code, but I have a question on the reference to the OCC in the second part of amendment (a). I am not convinced that that is the best place for this work to be done. If the breach of the code relates to health, education or a justice matter, for example, would it not be better in Scotland for that to be reported to the relevant Cabinet Secretary or to the local authority, the education department or the local health board? I am trying to understand the logic of why the OCC should be involved in this matter after the recording has, correctly, been done by the agency itself.

Damian Green: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's qualified support. The reason for choosing the OCC in the relevant constituent part of the UK—a point I hope he would welcome—is that that office will have as its first concern the welfare of children. It will always be open to the OCC to refer matters to other agencies if their involvement is required, but to try to specify a long list of potential agencies would give rise to a less elegant amendment. The principal point is the need for transparency. If breaches occur, somebody must be responsible for having them reported, and they must be somebody that this House and everyone involved can be reasonably certain will take effective action. I have confidence in the OCC to do that. As it is the best body to go to, this is the most effective way of protecting the interests of children—and if the OCC were not an effective way of protecting the interests of children, we should all be worried because that is what it is for.
	The second assurance I seek from the Minister is in response to something said by his noble Friend Lord Bassam on Third Reading. There was a discussion about whether the code could be applied retrospectively to existing contracts. Lord Bassam was not particularly precise on that. He said that
	"the advice that we have received is that it can be applied to existing contracts through the notice of change procedures already in place. We intend to ensure that the Border and Immigration Agency has a system of monitoring contractors' performance by measuring them against a set of standards devised for the specific activities that they carry out for the agency."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 2007; Vol. 695, c. 1002.]
	He did not state, however, whether all existing contracts would have the code of practice applied through the notice of change procedures. He simply said that it could be done. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that—I hope that he makes it clear that the code of practice will be applied in all such cases, and not just that it might be applied.
	Amendment (b) has been tabled simply in the hope—particularly in light of what happened in the other place—that everyone involved has sufficient time to agree the code. As we are taking half a step forward when we should be taking a full step forward, we must ensure that the code is supported by all who have the welfare of children at heart and that it is an effective code of practice.
	I recommend my amendments to the Minister and the House.

David Heath: I welcome Lords amendment No. 19. I am glad that Ministers were eventually persuaded by what was a strong coalition of interests in another place. Not only my noble Friends and those of the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), but Cross-Bench Peers, right reverend Prelates and most reverend Primates, were involved in making the strong arguments that, where we have a clear commitment through the Children's Act 2004 and our international obligations to the welfare of children, there is no reason why that should not apply in the sphere of Government activity under discussion as much as in any other. That is not to undermine the executive actions of the Border and Immigration Agency, because that would be absurd, any more than it is to undermine any of the other activities of Government that we require it to commit to the welfare of the child through pre-existing legislation and our treaty obligations. There must be a reconciliation with the proper interests of children as being a specific and vulnerable case, which needs to be addressed in respect of how things are done in the name of the state when it has an application that impinges on children. That is what was argued for strongly. There was resistance to that view in another place. I recall that the Government won a Division by a majority of one on precisely this issue before they chose to incorporate the new clause in any case.
	That much is welcome, but I understand the arguments for amendment (a) made by the hon. Member for Ashford. Unless we have a clear view of the actions that are in breach of the code of conduct, neither we, nor, more importantly, those outside this House who have a genuine interest in the interests of the child, will be able to monitor the adequacy of the arrangements that have been put in place. What he suggests in amendment (a) seems sensible.
	I accept the point, made in an intervention, that the Children's Commissioner may not always be the most appropriate person to be notified, but he is an entirely appropriate mechanism for ensuring that whatever breaches occur are put on the official record and are then actionable by the appropriate authorities. If the hon. Gentleman presses his amendment to a Division, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support him.
	I am less convinced by amendment (b), simply because I do not believe in delaying what ought to be in place ab initio in child protection. Although the argument is that a six months' delay will allow proper consultation with all the organisations concerned to ensure that things are done adequately, I would prefer the provision to be in place from the start of the implementation of this Bill, when enacted. If we treat Home Office Acts as being of a kind, it is possible that implementation of the Act may not, in any case, be for some time—indeed, the Act may well be repealed in whole or in part before it is ever implemented. That is how the Home Office manages its affairs. Let us take it on trust that it intends to implement this Bill and that once on the statute book, it will have a real effect.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important for there to be consultation with the children's organisations, charities and voluntary bodies? They stand up for children, and one would certainly want an assurance that such full consultation about the code of practice would take place.

David Heath: I want to hear the assertion that such consultation has already happened. I want the Minister to say from the Dispatch Box that he has already listened to that range of organisations that have an interest to ensure that their views are being taken, and have been taken, into account in preparing the code.

Damian Green: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my meetings with children's organisations over the past week suggest that whether or not the Minister feels that he has adequately consulted them on this code of practice, they do not feel that their views have yet been adequately reflected in it.

David Heath: That is precisely why I was looking forward to an assertion from the Dispatch Box by the Minister, so that it could be relayed back to those organisations.
	The last point that I want to make is that the Minister has accepted that the provision should apply not only to the agency, but to any contracted organisation that it might use to fulfil some of its duties. Again, there should have been no argument about that. It is absolutely straightforward. It should not have posed any question. The hon. Member for Ashford asked the Minister about the slightly less than lucid response from Lord Bassam. I have known Lord Bassam for a very long time, and his responses are often not quite as comprehensible as perhaps they should be, but I hope that the Minister will tell us exactly what he meant. Perhaps he simply meant that he was unsighted on the issue in another place, and perhaps the Minister can fill in the gaps for us this afternoon. On that basis, I will certainly not oppose Lords amendment No. 19, but I will support amendment (a) if the hon. Member for Ashford presses it to a vote.

John Redwood: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) on pressing this issue with hon. Members and those in the other place. I should like to thank the Government for listening and making some response. That is a welcome feature, but I rise to support his wish for the Government to go a bit further. The problem that they face is that they have made a concession in the form of a code of practice, which has nothing like the teeth that it would have if it were a statutory requirement or a procedure laid down in law.
	My hon. Friend's proposal is a good way to bridge the gap between a clear law on the one hand and a rather weak code of practice on the other. He suggests that, where the code of practice is not followed, it should be a matter of report, so that the people who follow the procedures will understand that it is not just any old code of practice that came round in an e-mail a year ago that has been forgotten about, but something that is part of their operative procedures. I hope that the Minister will accept amendment (a) in that spirit and that, having made the move to welcome the idea of a code of conduct, he will wish to see it firmly written into procedures, because there is a consensus in the House and the other place that the problem of children is very special in the context of our immigration service.
	As my hon. Friend has said, many Conservative Members wish to see stronger and better policing of our borders in all sorts of ways, but we also think that the rights of children need to be looked after.

Liam Byrne: The Government agree with Lords amendment No. 19, but resist amendments (a) and (b) for reasons that I will set out, but before I do so, I wish to put on the record my personal thanks to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have taken part in debates in the Chamber and in Committee. The hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) is right to say that this has been one of the most important parts of our debates, and I am grateful for the light that that has shed on the question.
	I am also grateful to Professor Al Ainsley-Green, the Children's Commissioner, with whom I have met and discussed these proposals; to the Refugee Children's Consortium, which includes Barnardo's and the Children's Society; and to the Association of Directors of Children's Services in England and officials in devolved Administrations not only for the help that they have given to us in getting the duty that we have introduced framed in the way that we have, but for the assistance that they have given to us in putting together a much broader programme of reform in how the Border and Immigration Agency treats children.
	This duty is one of four important measures that I have introduced over the past 12 months. We have the duty that we propose here. We have the new safeguarding code. We are now in the process of piloting alternatives to the detention of families with children. That pilot scheme will soon be operational. Of course, we are also consulting publicly on how our policies on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children can be changed. In particular, I am keen to see a much stronger provision of local authority care, with specialist authorities coming forward to look after unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, thus providing much greater protection than is currently available. It is not a case of eventual persuasion being needed, but part of a much broader and systematic programme of reform across the BIA.
	There have been debates about section 11 in the Chamber, in Committee and in another place, so I shall not rehearse all the arguments, save to point out that section 11 of the Children Act 2004 contains a double-headed duty. It is not only about keeping children safe but about promoting their welfare. The hon. Member for Ashford errs just a little when he colours the argument by stating that Ministers say it would be impossible to enforce the immigration rules if section 11 was imposed on the BIA. That is not the argument. The argument is that it would create the risk of judicial reviews and other legalistic devices being thrown against the agency, which will slow down its ability to remove people to the country from which they came—when courts have said it is appropriate to do so. Where there are chinks of light for people who want to resist BIA actions, they are pursued with some force, so my concern is that when Home Office lawyers and, in particular, BIA operational leaders, say that there is a risk that judicial reviews will multiply, it will slow the process of legitimate removal. That is dangerous, because where there are barriers to legitimate removal, we know they will be exploited by those who seek to do children harm.
	In a nutshell, if a section 11 duty was imposed on the agency, it would not be a risk-free measure; it would create a new risk—that the deportation removal process would be slowed down—and we know that is bound to be exploited by those who could do children harm.

Oliver Heald: As the Minister's code of conduct is only one to which the agency shall "have regard" rather than one that has to be strictly followed, does not he agree that there needs to be a mechanism to protect children, such as that set out in amendment (a)? If that is not to be the protection, what is?

Liam Byrne: I shall deal with amendment (a) and the protections, which are important, in a moment.

David Davies: In my dealings with the Minister, he often gives the impression that he shares the widespread concern about the abuse of the asylum system. If he is concerned that judicial reviews and taxpayers' money, which funds legal aid and lawyers, are being abused, would not it be more sensible to discuss with his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice how we can prevent fatuous legally aided appeals in the first place rather than circumnavigating section 11 of the Children Act?

Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman has a keen eye for some of the practicalities of the debate; he will be delighted to hear that discussions are ongoing with my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice.
	The upshot of my argument is that to accept section 11 is not risk-free and I am not prepared to take that risk at this stage. There are a number of necessary consequences. The first is that the code must apply to BIA contractors—a point put to me forcefully by children's charities. I am happy to accept that principle, which is important because the BIA works with contractors to provide both detention and escorting facilities. I can be clearer than my noble Friend, Lord Bassam: the code will apply to BIA contractors currently on the books and it will apply to BIA contractors in the future.
	The reason I resist amendment (a) is fairly straightforward. The hon. Member for Ashford put his finger on the key principle—transparency. It is absolutely crucial that departures from the code are recorded. Amendment (a) is sketched in such a way that it begins, in effect, to make the Border and Immigration Agency accountable to the Children's Commissioner, and to extend his original role. Let us remember that his original role is carefully defined in legislation: it is to ensure that children's views are taken into account. As the House will know, I am keen to avoid such a change, because an important part of the Bill is the creation of a much more powerful regulator, and I do not wish to blur roles and responsibilities in the regulatory system. I want to make sure that there is one regulator, who is unchallengeable.
	However, I have asked officials to talk to the Children's Commissioner about how we can satisfy the ambition behind the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ashford, and I can now tell the House that where there are deviations from the code, the BIA will be required to record them. Those departures will be reviewed by a senior member of the BIA team, as and when they occur. We will also alert the BIA's chief inspector, and if it wishes to undertake an investigation on that point, it is empowered to do so. On top of that, there will be quarterly meetings between the BIA and the Children's Commissioner, at which all departures from the code will be discussed. I am told that officials working with the Children's Commissioner believe that that is a workable and sensible mechanism.
	I hope that that puts some concerns to bed, but I can give the House an additional comfort: under section 2(9) of the Children Act 2004, the commissioner has the right to be supplied with any information relating to BIA functions that he may reasonably request to discharge his role. Our policy will be to disclose immediately, should the Children's Commissioner seek to lodge such a request. Those are important safeguards, which I am happy to read on to the record this afternoon. They underline the key point that the hon. Member for Ashford made: if the code is to be worth something, there must be transparency as regards its enforcement.
	I must apologise to their lordships for the late arrival of the code; that was entirely my responsibility. The code was late because I was not satisfied with the original draft. To my mind, some of the wording of the original code was ambiguous. It was not hard-edged enough in terms of the obligations that it imposed on the BIA, so I ordered a rewrite over the final weekend, and that produced a delay in making the code available in another place.
	I wish to resist amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 19. I sympathise with the argument made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), which is that we need to press on as fast as possible with the implementation of the code. The word of comfort that I can offer is straightforward: the code will be put out to a full public consultation, in line with Cabinet Office guidelines. I will work with the children's charities to help to get that right. I have met them already and I am happy to meet them again. That means a full three-month consultation period, which will take place before the code is put in place—in, I imagine, about six months' time. We will follow the Cabinet Office guideline-based process to get the code right and to put it in place, and I think that that will serve the ambitions of the hon. Member for Ashford. I urge the House to resist amendments (a) and (b), and I commend Lords amendment No. 19.

Damian Green: May I express my gratitude to the Minister for the steps forward that he has taken? He has made genuine and welcome concessions in response to our amendment (a), and I am glad to hear of them. Sadly, although we have inched towards each other, I do not think that we have yet met in the middle of the bridge. I am not convinced that a quarterly meeting with the Children's Commissioner is enough, as in some cases an immediate and urgent investigation will certainly be required. As I say, I welcome the Minister's concessions, but I do not think that they go far enough, and I still wish to press amendment (a).
	On amendment (b), I take the point that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made about the six-month delay, but as we have just heard the Minister say that it will take six months for the code to come into force, it seems to me that we are left with a distinction without a difference. However, I will press amendment (a) to a Division.
	 Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 182, Noes 268.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That on Tuesday 30th October, the House shall meet at 11.30 a.m. —[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

Burma

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

Douglas Alexander: Let me begin by explaining that the Foreign Secretary, with whom I spoke yesterday evening, would have been at the Dispatch Box this evening but for the joyful news that he and his wife Louise have adopted a second son, Jacob. Naturally, he is taking a short break from his ministerial duties, and I am confident that I speak for the whole House in sending the Miliband family our sincere best wishes at that wonderful news.
	The House has long been united by a repugnance at the brutality of the Burmese regime and an admiration for the bravery of the Burmese people. This evening, I shall address three areas: I shall begin by outlining the situation on the ground in Burma in respect of the recent crackdown and the wider political and economic problems; I shall move on to how the United Kingdom is supporting international efforts to bring about change in the country; and I shall end by describing the actions that the Department for International Development is taking.
	In mid-August, popular—and peaceful—protests began on the streets of Burma's cities in reaction to sharp increases in fuel prices. Monks joined ordinary citizens on the streets; the voice of the Burmese people was being heard. The response of the Burmese regime was shocking, if predictable. We do not know how many the regime killed, but the true toll is likely to be many times higher than the regime has so far admitted. Some, such as the Japanese photographer Kenji Nagai, were killed in full view of the world—many more, we fear, have died behind closed doors.
	Many people who may have been only remotely connected with the protests have been rounded up. Our best estimate is that more than 2,000 demonstrators, including many monks, remain in detention—in addition to the 1,100 political prisoners already held by the regime. The reports that we are hearing of the conditions in which people are detained are horrific: monks stripped of their robes and beaten; prisoners left to die in their cells; and hundreds crammed into rooms without sanitation.
	The events of the past months have been the focus of much attention in the House, the media and the country at large. However, the roots of Burma's social, political and economic failure lie deep. It is now 45 years since the military coup, almost 20 years since the 1988 student movement was crushed leaving thousands dead, and 17 years since the regime disregarded the overwhelming choice of the Burmese people.
	Although recent protests were sparked off by popular reaction to a steep rise in fuel prices, they reflect a deep frustration with the persistent lack of democracy and economic opportunity. They were a desperate call for a better future for a country where isolationism and repression have condemned millions to poverty. The protests were not, as the Burmese authorities have suggested, the result of external interference. A third of Burma's population—some 17 million people—live on less than a third of a dollar a day. Public investment in health and education is among the lowest in the world. Yet Burma is a country with no shortage of natural or human resources. It should stand alongside its neighbours as a prosperous, vigorous and outward looking member of the global economy.
	However, that vision cannot be realised without fundamental change; and change in Burma will not be easy. It will require courageous leadership that allows a wide range of Burmese voices to debate and forge a common future. Genuine reform includes: reconciliation between the Government and opposition groups, including the minority ethnic groups; accountable and responsible Government; respect for human rights; and effective economic management. At the heart of change must be a process of national reconciliation and dialogue. The regime's own road map cannot succeed. It does not involve the National League for Democracy or any other key political figures. It will convince neither the people of Burma nor the outside world. Real change requires the restoration of institutions: a free media, an independent judiciary, trade unions, local government and an accountable police force that protects rather than persecutes its own people. Better economic management is also vital to Burma's future, ending over-regulation, fighting corruption and encouraging investment and enterprise.

Jim Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend touch on the role that China has played in this? According to some pundits, it can have a great influence on the outcome of the situation in Burma.

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have been engaged in discussions with China, not least in relation to the recent presidential statement in the Security Council, which I will address in the course of my remarks.
	Let me set out the United Kingdom Government's view on the way forward for Burma. Our diplomatic strategy is to apply pressure from all possible directions. With Britain's strong encouragement, the international community has made it clear that the Burmese regime must take meaningful steps towards reform and reconciliation. Recent weeks have seen an unprecedented statement by the UN Security Council, to which I just referred; the strengthening of European Union sanctions; and visits by the UN Secretary-General's special envoy, Professor Ibrahim Gambari, to Burma and the neighbouring countries. The United Nations is the primary focus of Britain's diplomatic efforts. On 2 October the EU, strongly backed by the UK, tabled a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council strongly deploring the situation in Burma and requesting that the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Burma, Sergio Pinheiro, be given immediate access to the country. That drew almost unprecedented support, including from countries hitherto reluctant to criticise the regime publicly, and was, I am pleased to say, agreed unanimously.
	On 11 October, the UN Security Council sent an even more powerful signal, when it unanimously agreed a presidential statement strongly deploring the use of violence against peaceful demonstrations, calling for the release of all political prisoners and underlining the need for the Burmese Government to establish a genuine dialogue with all concerned parties and all ethnic groups.

David Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in addition to what the UN has already done it would be helpful if the Secretary-General himself, rather than his envoy, went to Burma and argued with the regime? Will he suggest that to the Secretary-General?

Douglas Alexander: Obviously, we keep all options under consideration in terms of the means by which the international community, and the United Nations in particular, can most effectively make clear its views to the Burmese regime. We are anticipating a further visit from Professor Gambari, the Secretary-General's envoy. I think that the appropriate approach to take forward now is to offer every support to Professor Gambari and to reflect on the outcome of his second and, I would hope, longer visit to Burma than the first visit that he was able to make since the terrible events of recent weeks. At that point, we will have the opportunity to discuss these matters with our partners in the Security Council and, indeed, with the Secretary-General. When I attended the UN General Assembly in September, I had the opportunity, along with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, to discuss our very grave concerns about the situation in Burma directly with the Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon. I can assure the House that he is fully seized of the importance of this matter and is keeping all options under review.

Andrew Mitchell: Is not the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) absolutely right in that it is a matter of great importance that the Secretary-General himself should go there? Is he not the right man to go there at this point in view of his provenance and his reputation?

Douglas Alexander: Obviously, I would not discount that possibility and I sought to reflect that in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South. However, we need to be careful in sending a clear signal to the Burmese regime. Given the tasking of Professor Gambari, it is important that we do not seek to undermine the Secretary-General's special envoy ahead of what will be a critical visit to the region and the country in the coming days. In a relatively short number of weeks, we will have the opportunity to take a clear view in light of the further advice we receive from Professor Gambari as to whether the direct involvement of the Secretary-General would be appropriate at this stage. I certainly would not discount it.
	I share the instincts of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) that we need to make it clear that there is a universal, strong international community view on the matter, but a little patience is called for in allowing the Secretary-General's special envoy to take forward his work.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a great feeling of frustration among those of us who have waited so long for a change in Burma? Would he cast his mind back to those instances where regimes have changed when senior people visit, such as heads of state, not just UN representatives? Is there not a time when a head of state should visit a country, or attempt to, to show how important the matter is to the British people, not just the United Nations?

Douglas Alexander: In response to my hon. Friend, I would simply observe that it is no secret that there have been divisions in the UN Security Council in recent years as to the way forward. As recently as January, a motion was tabled at the Security Council that precipitated a veto from two members, and although I accept and share his concern and frustration at the glacial pace of change in Burma, which all of us want to see accelerated, I ask him to take heart in the fact that the Security Council has spoken with one voice. It is against that backdrop that Special Envoy Gambari will make his second visit to the country.
	I assure my hon. Friend that, based on my conversations with the Secretary-General, never mind the ones that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had with him in recent weeks, I know that he shares the broad sense of frustration felt in this House and in the international community. Careful, calibrated judgments have to be made regarding how best to ensure that international pressure yields the results we all want to see.

Andrew Selous: Returning to the issue of China for a moment, does the Secretary of State agree that next year's Olympics in Beijing give the world community a precious opportunity to put pressure on the Chinese during the next few months? The role of China is fundamental, and the Burmese Government will listen to that country.

Douglas Alexander: Clearly, there are long-standing and historic ties, not least economic ones, between China and Burma. The hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that. I had the opportunity to visit China earlier this year in my previous ministerial capacity as Secretary of State for Transport and there is a genuine desire on the part of the Government in Beijing for China to be seen as a responsible international citizen or player ahead of what they see as the welcoming of the world to the Beijing Olympics. Therefore, every opportunity should be taken to engage in serious and sustained conversation with the Beijing Government about the best way in which we can act together, with a single voice, on the issue of Burma.
	I pay tribute to the fact that in recent weeks the Chinese Government have taken a different tack, in the presidential statement secured at the Security Council, from the one they adopted as recently as January, when both China and Russia exercised a veto in relation to previous moves by the Security Council.

Mike Gapes: The Association of South East Asian Nations countries have an important role in relation to Burma. They have standards and aspirations relating to pluralism and democracy that are clearly not being fulfilled by the regime. What does he think that other countries in the region, as well as China, can do to assist in this process?

Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend brings to bear considerable experience from chairing the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to his observation. He will know that a decisive commentary has been offered by the ASEAN group this time, which has simply not been the case in the past when terrible events have taken place in Burma. Too often in the past, neighbouring countries—indeed, Asia itself—appeared to step back or walk on the other side when terrible events have taken place.
	I welcome the robust statement issued by ASEAN, reflecting its repugnance at the actions taken against the monks in Rangoon and throughout Burma. It is a welcome development and reflects, exactly as my hon. Friend's question suggests, an awareness on the part of ASEAN that if it wants to develop beyond being an economic community and stand for certain norms in the region, it should recognise that the present conduct of the regime in Burma stands far apart from expected reasonable standards of international conduct.
	There are glimmers of hope—whether in the action taken in the United Nations Security Council through the presidential statement or in the different tone that ASEAN has adopted about recent events in Burma—that the international community is making clear its view about the darkness and horror of the events that we witnessed. That simply was not the case in previous years.
	The presidential statement was the first formal action on Burma that the Security Council has taken. Those signing up to it included, of course, China, a permanent member of the Security Council, as we have had the opportunity to discuss, and, as has also been said, Burma's most powerful neighbour. The political situation has therefore shifted significantly from the position of only a few weeks ago. That reflects a genuine and shared concern across the international community, uniting countries that have traditionally engaged with Burma with those that have previously sought to apply pressure through sanctions.
	We look forward to the first meeting of the "core group" on Burma, proposed by Ibrahim Gambari and, if asked to join, we will be glad to do so on behalf of the United Kingdom. At the same time, the UK has been working with our EU partners to ascertain the direct leverage that we can bring to bear on the Burmese regime. On 15 October, Europe agreed stronger restrictive measures, targeting the business interests from which the regime draws much of its revenue—timber, precious metals and gems.
	On the same day, our Prime Minister announced that we will review with our partners the implementation of the EU arms embargo to address any risk that arms or their components might be diverted or re-exported to Burma. We have been careful to avoid measures that will hurt the ordinary Burmese people. Sanctions are therefore targeted at the regime.
	Those with the most direct influence on the Burmese authorities are Burma's neighbours, ASEAN countries, China and India. It is becoming ever clearer that regional stability and prosperity is best served by a managed process of political reform in Burma. So the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and other Foreign Office Ministers have been in regular contact with their counterparts in the region, encouraging them to make their voices heard and get behind the United Nations process.

Daniel Kawczynski: What differences does the Secretary of State perceive between the Chinese and the Indians in their stance on Burma? Is there a difference between the two countries' current thinking on the matter?

Douglas Alexander: Obviously there is a difference in their place in the United Nations system, given that China is a permanent member of the Security Council. There has been a significant shift in the position that China took as recently as earlier this year, when it exercised its veto in the Security Council. We continue to discuss the matter with India. I am not sure whether it greatly assists the cause of securing a broad international consensus to offer a comparative view of two of the principal regional players, on which we rely to offer the sort of concerted and co-ordinated international response that will be most effective in trying to bring pressure to bear on the Burmese regime. The relationship between China and Burma is key and we will be watching to ascertain whether China follows up the positive steps that I have described.
	If genuine progress on reform takes place in Burma, the international community should be ready to support it. On 15 October, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote to the leaders of G7 countries, India, China and Portugal—as president of the European Union—Singapore, as the current chair of ASEAN, Ban Ki-moon and the heads of the World Bank and of the IMF, proposing an economic initiative in support of a recovery plan for Burma, conditional on progress with reconciliation and moving forward with the process of political change in Burma.
	On 20 October, at the Prime Minister's request, I held a meeting in Washington with representatives from that group. We emphasised the shared need for concrete and verifiable steps along the path to reconciliation and reform in Burma. We initiated a discussion of the possible size and shape of international support should those steps be taken. Although the international community is rightly considering Burma's future, we must also continue to provide humanitarian support to the roughly 50 million people who suffer genuine poverty under the current regime.

David Burrowes: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the concern of the many people who are keeping a vigil tonight for Burma? Will he acknowledge especially the plight of the internally displaced people who are the long-standing victims of the military junta, for example, the Chin people on the Thai border? Will he follow the Select Committee's recommendations and the Canadian Government's lead in giving genuine and positive help in the form of aid to the border people?

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman's intervention anticipates some remarks that I hope will find favour with him as I move towards the conclusion of my speech.
	Let me set these matters in context. The Department for International Development's assistance to Burma has increased from £2 million a year in 2002 to £9 million this financial year, including the additional £1 million that I announced earlier this month to meet urgent new needs and to help to ensure that vulnerable people do not suffer as a result of the recent grave brutality.
	I can assure the House that none of this funding is spent through the Burmese central Government. All our aid in Burma is delivered through the United Nations or through non-governmental organisations. It supports basic services that make a real difference to the lives of vulnerable people. For example, more than half of Burmese children fail to complete primary school. To help keep more children in school, the Department for International Development is supporting UNICEF's efforts to provide materials and text books to half a million children, mostly in remote areas. We are also working with Save the Children to help local communities to organise pre-schools. Life expectancy in Burma is 10 years lower than in neighbouring Thailand. The Department is also supporting efforts to fight the three main killer diseases—malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS—with the aim of saving 1 million lives a year.
	Continuing conflict in eastern Burma has had a terrible impact on the civilian population. They have been subjected to human rights abuses and forced labour, and many have fled their homes. Today, at least 500,000 people are displaced in Burma, including 90,000 still living in areas racked by conflict, and 160,000 living as refugees in Thailand. The Department is providing £1.8 million over three years for food and shelter for Burmese refugees in Thailand and for emergency cross-border assistance to displaced people in Burma. We are also providing £400,000 this year to support health, education and livelihoods among communities in Burma.
	DFID is also supporting Burmese organisations to build the foundations for a better society. For obvious reasons, a lot of the work that those organisations do is not overtly political, but it is important to support their efforts where we can. We are, for example, providing £500,000 over three years to improve the ability of civil society organisations to organise themselves, and setting up a new fund of £3 million to help Burmese organisations to promote people's participation in local level decision making—for example, in forest management, agriculture, education and health services.
	Many hon. Members will recall that the International Development Committee reported on Burma as recently as July. The Government's response to that report was published last week, and shows clearly our agreement with most of its recommendations. I should like to share four of the key recommendations with the House: the need to increase funding for cross-border assistance; the need to improve communication and co-ordination between aid agencies and local community organisations working in Burma; the proposal to maintain a Department for International Development presence in Thailand; and the recommendation to increase the size of the Department's programme. Let me take each recommendation in turn.
	I fully agree with the Select Committee's view that the humanitarian assistance provided from across the border in Thailand should complement, not compete with, the assistance provided from inside Burma. We remain deeply concerned at the condition of vulnerable people living on all Burma's borders. I certainly pay tribute to those who are holding vigils in that cause this evening. Earlier this year, DFID agreed to allow its funding to be used for the cross-border delivery of emergency assistance to displaced people inside Burma, as well as to Burmese refugees in Thailand. We have given £1.8 million over the past three years to the Thai-Burma border consortium, and we will consider carefully the needs that it identifies for the next phase of our support, from early 2008.
	The United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs is undertaking an assessment of the needs of displaced people in eastern Burma. DFID will use those findings to inform our future funding decisions in relation to those people. The Department will consider project proposals from groups inside or outside Burma. They must be clearly aimed at poverty reduction, and will be assessed according to normal transparency and accountability criteria.
	The Select Committee made a number of recommendations on improving communication and co-ordination among the providers of humanitarian assistance in Burma, including between those working inside the country and those working from across the borders. The Department and the United Nations are both supporting contacts between organisations working with displaced people inside Burma and the agencies providing cross-border support.
	We recognise the need to strengthen our staffing to deal with Burma. The Department is substantially increasing the number of staff based in Burma and has also strengthened its London-based team working on Burma. We have carefully examined the Committee's recommendation that we should maintain staff in Thailand to monitor our assistance to the border areas. Indeed, I have discussed that subject in recent hours with our head of office in Rangoon. However, our considered assessment is that this work can be carried out effectively from Rangoon and London. Increasing the number of staff in Rangoon allows greater capacity to do this, as well as to manage our programme in Burma itself. I have personally impressed upon our staff in Rangoon the importance that I attach to close monitoring of the situation on the Thai border. London-based officials also plan to visit Burma and the Thai border region regularly.
	The International Development Committee recommended that we quadruple our Burma programme by 2013. Clearly, as has been reflected in this evening's debate, the situation in Burma remains fluid, so it seems appropriate at this stage to address funding during the spending review period to 2010-11. That is why I can inform the House today that we will double our aid to the Burmese people over the period of the spending review—from £9 million today to £18 million a year by 2010-11. That does not prejudge any decisions made in relation to the next spending review period.

Sally Keeble: Having previously visited the camps on the border, may I ask the Secretary of State whether the embassy in Thailand will continue to carry out the solidarity work with those camps? Leaving the refugees on the border without that support, quite apart from the humanitarian and practical implications, would be a terrible political blow to them. They might well see it as the withdrawal of support from the UK Government.

Douglas Alexander: I think that we all need to exercise caution in the language we use about these issues. None of us would seek to give encouragement to the Burmese regime by characterising any of these organisations as somehow having the interests of anyone other than the Burmese people at heart. I can assure my hon. Friend—I took the opportunity to speak to our ambassador in Rangoon today, though not to our ambassador in Bangkok—that the Foreign Office is seized of the importance of this work. Nothing that I have announced from the Dispatch Box today—effectively the doubling of our assistance from £9 million to £18 million—prejudices the ongoing work that is being taken forward in the camps. I hope that when we see the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs review and when the other work I mentioned is carried out, we will be able to make judgments on the basis of the best evidence as to what further support should be provided to those who are often suffering in very poor conditions in camps on the border.
	The doubling of funding that I have announced by 2010-11 will enable us to help more children go to school, to treat more people suffering from malaria, tuberculosis and HIV, to invest in community development and rural livelihoods and further to address the humanitarian needs of those living in border regions. More humanitarian assistance will help alleviate immediate hardship, but I hope fervently that we will soon see the wider reforms needed to unlock the true potential of the Burmese people and the full support of the international community. As the Prime Minister has said, we will not turn our backs on the people of Burma. In that, I am confident that he has the backing not only of this House, but of the British people.

William Hague: It is welcome that the House is turning its attention today to the plight of the people in Burma—a bitter injustice which has inflamed the strong feelings of hundreds of millions of people across the world and which blights the lives of millions of Burmese people. We had hoped that the Foreign Secretary would open the debate, but we entirely understand why he cannot and why he asked the International Development Secretary to take his place. We heartily wish him well with his expanded family.
	It is appropriate to debate this subject now, as five days ago marked 12 years to the day that Aung San Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest. Her courage and self-sacrifice never cease to inspire our deepest admiration and respect. There is perhaps no greater testament to the power of her example than the lengths to which a vicious military regime has gone to keep one woman isolated from the world and from her own people.
	As we know, the Burmese have lived under military rule for 45 years. The images and information about their suffering that have reached the outside world throughout that time are truly appalling—images of poverty, stories of human rights abuses, extra-judicial killings, torture and disappearances, rape, the destruction of villages, the use of forced labour and children pressed into military service. Presumably, the facts that have reached us are the tip of the iceberg, as the regime has gone to great lengths to shield its actions from the spotlight of the world's attention. The fact that we know as much as we do is testament to the bravery of those Burmese who have spoken out against the regime, to the dedication of aid workers on the ground, and to the courage of Burmese pro-democracy activists, such as Zoya Phan, who has twice made inspirational addresses to the Conservative party conference. From her words, and those of others like her, we can say, I think without exaggeration, that the Burmese regime is one of the worst in the world.
	On the Conservative Benches, in common with colleagues in other parts of the House, we have long regarded the situation in Burma as a human rights priority. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for International Development, who will wind up the debate for us, visited the country this year and was the first senior British politician in many years to meet members of the regime. When we created the Conservative party human rights commission in 2005, its first action was to hold a hearing on Burma.
	The situation in Burma could be so different. If the party that had won an overwhelming victory in the 1990 general election in Burma had been allowed to take office, we might be extolling the Burmese success story and looking for ways to deepen trade and links between our countries. Elsewhere in Asia, countries once dominated by military regimes have successfully evolved and are richer today. More than 100 million people across east Asia have left the ranks of the extreme poor since 2000. However, Burma is light years from that progress. It used to be known as the rice bowl of Asia. It was one of the richest nations on the continent when it gained independence. Today, the Burmese regime invests less in education and health care than almost any other Government in the world and its people face some of the worst poverty in the region.
	In those dreadful conditions—the House must recognise this—the people of Burma have shown incredible resilience and courage. In a country where criticism of the regime is punishable by imprisonment, September's dramatic protests reminded us that the people of Burma want their freedom and that they deserve our full support as they seek to attain and exercise the rights that we freely enjoy.

Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what typifies this hideous regime is the imprisonment of a good friend of many of us in the House, James Mawdsley, for the crime of distributing Bibles when he visited Burma? Trying to repress the distribution of Bibles and lock away people involved in such an act shows how hideous it is.

William Hague: Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I remember hearing James Mawdsley describe his experiences. It brings home the tyrannical nature of the regime and its determination to suppress the freedom of thought and religion that he was trying to encourage.
	Thousands of people took to the streets to voice their discontent last month in the full knowledge that the last time similar protests took place—in 1998—the Government response killed 3,000 people. This time, too, the junta met peaceful protesters with violence. They levelled their weapons against monks. As we watched the ruthlessness with which the protests were crushed, we witnessed not only the junta's repression but in some measure the outcome of 17 years of inactivity by the international community. Seventeen years have been lost. During that time the Security Council has not passed a single resolution condemning the situation in Burma or applying pressure on its leaders.
	I want to raise three sets of issues: first, our immediate diplomatic response to the recent crises; secondly, what has been done to build an effective diplomatic coalition since then; and thirdly, the Government's strategy going forward, on which the Secretary of State said some words. On the immediate response, our first concern must be the safety of those detained during the protests and those who have been rounded up since. We hope that it has been possible to establish a better picture of what happened last month. The regime claims to have released all but 500 of the Buddhist monks and other demonstrators it detained, although the Secretary of State just put the figure at 2,000, which is a far more believable assessment. The International Committee of the Red Cross says that it is deeply worried about those who are believed still to be in custody, particularly as it has been banned from visiting prisons to check up on those still under arrest. That is in itself a gross failure to meet the basic principles of international humanitarian law. We hope that the Government pressed the Burmese regime on that issue throughout the crisis and that it continues to do so now in the most vigorous way.
	There are also disturbing reports of detainees being dispersed around the country to centres that the regime chillingly and bizarrely calls "new life camps" but which are in reality gulags where detainees are used as forced labour. That clearly makes the task of tracking the condition and whereabouts of those in detention vastly more difficult, but no less vital. There were reports during the crisis that UN computers had been seized by the military with the apparent intention of obtaining information on opposition figures. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government think that that did take place and if they have been able to establish to what extent such information was available on the computers and could have been of use to the regime?
	There have been first-hand accounts of regime officials scouring villages looking for people whose faces were caught on camera during the protests. I trust that all possible efforts will be made to monitor these activities to try to keep track of the numbers arrested and to use every opportunity to protest about such detentions. Another area of concern must be the fate of those involved in the leadership and organisation of the protests. I hope that the Minister can say whether it has proved possible to establish any contact with the Alliance of All Burmese Buddhist Monks, which emerged during the crisis as the group leading the protest. Although we are aware that any such contact could be dangerous to the safety of those involved by making them known to the authorities, identifying individuals has made it possible elsewhere to hold Governments to account and to make it harder for them to subject such people to violence or politically motivated imprisonment.
	On the surface, Rangoon, in the official assessment, is calm. The regime speaks of a return to normalcy and stability. However, the situation is anything but normal. Reports suggest that the regime continues to raid monasteries, arrest activists and subject those detained to inhumane conditions. The death of National League for Democracy member, Win Shwe, who was arrested and tortured by the authorities, is only the most visible manifestation of the cruelty; many others appear to have shared his fate.
	It is vital—this is why it is so good that we are debating the issue tonight—that the Burmese regime is not allowed to believe that it has weathered the storm and that the international outcry about its actions has somehow died down. Now is the time for us to step up our diplomatic efforts. We welcome—I am sure that we all do—the prompt visit to Burma by the UN special envoy Ibrahim Gambari, but it is far from clear that he was able to receive any specific commitments from the Burmese leadership to engage in real talks with the opposition and to release political prisoners. The apparent concession made by the regime to allow him to meet Aung San Suu Kyi seems to have been little more than a ruse to gain some positive publicity. Attacks on villages and military atrocities in northern Karen state, where 80,000 people have been displaced in this year alone, continued unabated during the UN special envoy's visit. Professor Gambari was prevented from meeting any other detainees, other members of the National League for Democracy or representatives of the Buddhist clergy. The junta's talks with the opposition leader should be seen in this light. Seventy detainees appear to have been released last week, but there is no sign that the regime is prepared to release her, or most of the 1,300 political prisoners in Burma.
	Turning now to the building of an effective diplomatic coalition, we hope that Professor Gambari, on behalf of the UN, will return to Burma soon and that when he does so he will have the full backing of the Security Council to extract commitments from the regime and to hold it to them. We agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, East (Mr. Marshall) that the time has come for the UN Secretary-General to go himself, which my hon. Friend the shadow International Development Secretary has called for and has put to the Government. The Secretary of State said that the Government would look for a further report, but we have no doubt that, whatever the recommendations to come from Professor Gambari, the UN sending the Secretary-General himself to visit Burma and meet the main players there would accord a degree of profile and pressure that would place the military leaders in a more difficult situation. We echo that call.
	Equally important are the visits by the UN envoy and others to key regional capitals. The active support of Burma's neighbours would transform the current international censure into real, effective pressure—a point made by several Members. We welcome the fact that the 10 nations of ASEAN formally condemned the violence and expressed their "revulsion" at the methods used to suppress the protests. We also welcome Thailand's proposal to convene a four-party meeting of ASEAN, the UN, India and China to formulate a response.
	However, ASEAN as a whole has displayed unwillingness to take action against Burma. The Foreign Minister of Singapore, who currently holds the chair of ASEAN, described its policy in a recent interview as a group decision to
	"bite our tongue to keep Burma in the family because it serves our long term strategic interest."
	That is a great disappointment. Over 70 per cent. of Burmese exports go to members of ASEAN, giving those countries great leverage over the Burmese leadership if they chose to exert it. A $150 million gas exploration deal with the regime was agreed even as the protests were taking place and Chinese trade and investment provides the regime with its main economic lifeline. Regrettably, the priority of Burma's neighbours appears to be not to resolve the crisis, but to defuse it as far as their own interests are concerned so that they can return to business as usual.

Mark Hendrick: The right hon. Gentleman talks about neighbouring countries investing in Burma, but many European companies invest in Burma, including Total, which also invests in Preston. I am very glad about that, but obviously its activities in Burma concern me. What is his view on the issue of investment from European sources?

William Hague: Investing in Preston is a rather different matter, I am delighted to say. I will come in a moment to European policy and what our Government should be doing on that score. I will complete my point about Burma's neighbours and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will come to his point in a moment.
	In order to be effective, international pressure on Burma needs to be supported across the international community. That means that Burma's neighbours and key trading partners must act. The regime in Burma will not feel under pressure until they do so. We support the Prime Minister's announcement that Britain will send Ministers to the region to talk to the ASEAN Governments, as well as to China, India, and Japan. I hope that the Minister will be able to specify in greater detail what Britain is setting out to achieve in this respect. Our case for raising Burma at the Security Council would be considerably strengthened if any of Burma's neighbours were to lend their support, for although those countries have joined us in condemning the situation, they do not share the same view of how to encourage change in Burma.
	In light of that, we must all welcome the fact that the Security Council was able to agree a joint statement on Burma. It was the first time that the Security Council had taken any kind of public position on Burma and it is action that is long overdue. We fully supported the Government's efforts, along with the US, to bring Burma before the Security Council earlier this year. I hope that the Government will continue their efforts to raise the issue at the Security Council and to generate Russian and Chinese support for measures relating to Burma.
	Looking to the strategy going forward, the Prime Minister has said that the Security Council will
	"meet again to review the results"
	of its recent presidential statement and that the UK will seek UN sanctions if no substantive progress has been made. That commitment must not be allowed to slide and is very much one that the Opposition support. We appreciate the difficulties in getting the support of other Security Council members, but without consistent pressure there is little hope of influencing the Burmese leadership. The obvious concern is the definition of the "progress" called for by the Security Council statement. I hope Ministers will agree that that must be real progress, starting with meetings without preconditions with opposition figures and the release of political prisoners. Token action should not be enough to stave off the pressure for action at the Security Council.
	If it could be achieved, a binding UN sanctions resolution would require countries such as China, Russia and India to moderate their support for the Burmese regime, and in our view it should include an embargo on arms sales to Burma. That would worry the military regime more than almost anything else. There is also a strong case for imposing limits on companies making finance available to named Burmese state-owned companies, their joint ventures and subsidiaries, which serve only to prop up this unpleasant regime.
	It is right that while debate about Security Council action is going on, the EU should act, as the US has done, to increase targeted sanctions on the regime. We welcome the EU decision of 15 October to increase EU sanctions on Burma. The steps taken to ban the sale of equipment to, and investment in, the mining, logging and precious jewels sectors are sensible. However, we had hoped for more.
	I ask the Minister to provide clarification on a few points in her winding-up speech. The EU statement of 15 October requested
	"relevant bodies to elaborate further restrictive measures, including a ban on new investments".
	Will she confirm, therefore, that the EU is considering a full ban on new investments in Burma? That goes to the heart of the question raised by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick).
	Secondly, on aid, the EU statement said merely that the EU
	"stands ready to increase this assistance, subject to further assessments of the humanitarian situation."
	Given that the humanitarian situation is dire, that appears to be a complacent European response. According to the Department for International Development, Burma receives one of the lowest levels of international assistance—£1 per person in 2002, 10 times less than EU aid to Zimbabwe. That is insufficient. The Secretary of State made announcements on that matter this evening, on which I wish to make a point shortly.
	Another question I want the Minister to address when she speaks at the end of the debate is whether efforts have been made to identify the Burmese leaders and officials most responsible for the violence against the protestors, and whether the Government will seek further EU restrictions against them personally. The widening of EU sanctions is an important first step but, as has been pointed out to us by Burmese activists, unless the EU resolves to enforce the measures consistently, they will have little effect.
	Turning closer to home, the Secretary of State for International Development recently set out proposals to develop an economic initiative to support recovery in Burma, if and when there is verifiable progress towards reconciliation and democracy. It is right for incentives for change to be set out alongside the penalties that the regime will face if it continues on its course. However, there was concern about the way that the proposals were launched, which was reflected in some newspapers. There were suggestions that the announcement in Washington was not launched in consultation with the United States; the Minister might wish to clear that up. The US and the UK have stood shoulder to shoulder on Burma, and co-ordinating our strategy will increase our effectiveness and ensure that the Burmese regime is presented with a united front.
	The International Development Committee recently described British aid to Burmese refugees as "unacceptably low". Although the Government's announcement that DFID will provide £8 million in aid to Burma this year and the Secretary of State's announcement of an increase in future years are welcome, that still falls far short of what is needed. Although the Secretary of State announced an increase in aid in coming years, it is not in line with the IDC recommendation that aid should be quadrupled by 2013. That is the option that we much prefer, and we will wish to say more on it in winding up the debate.
	The World Food Programme reported this month that at least one in 10 Burmese are going to bed hungry and about 5 million people do not have enough food. The WFP itself can reach only an estimated 500,000 of those people, which is far fewer than is needed. I hope that over the coming months the Government will set out steps that they will take to support those working to provide much needed emergency aid to the hundreds of thousands of displaced people in Burma, and that they will revise upwards the Secretary of State's commitments of tonight, as well as support those working to document human rights abuses and promote democracy in Burma.
	There have been pleas by Burmese activists—already repeated in this debate—for the UK to provide more humanitarian aid to those hiding in the jungle and frontier areas. They argue that that aid could be sent across borders from neighbouring countries without being susceptible to interference by the Burmese regime. The Secretary of State said that he would seriously consider such requests. That consideration should be urgent; consideration at length would not be good enough. We must ensure that Britain is doing everything reasonable within its power to ameliorate the plight of these people. I hope that in her summation the Minister will give the Government's assessment of the UK's ability to deliver such aid. Can that be done without obstruction from the regime, and can it now be increased?
	It is our duty as fellow human beings to continue to stand with the people of Burma. Our actions should embolden and empower the Burmese people, not contribute to their further impoverishment and isolation. Only a genuine process of internal reform and reconciliation with the full involvement of the Burmese opposition will deliver stability, democracy and prosperity to the country. That requires a great deal of pressure from the international community. It must seize the initiative now—when the regime might be most sensitive to international criticism and keen to deflect the consequences—in order to bring about the change that the people of Burma so desperately need. We must say that enough is enough, and work to ensure that the world never witnesses a repeat of last month's scenes on the streets of Rangoon. The people who demonstrated so bravely must have done so because they have some hope that their circumstances can change for the better, and those languishing in Burmese jails will keep going only if they have hope for the future. We in this House must help to make sure that they do not hope in vain.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Last Thursday, the House decided to accept the Modernisation Committee report recommendation that the Speaker should have the power to vary a previously set time limit. That power takes effect in the next Session, which is unfortunate as it would have been handy to have been able to use it tonight, because a miscalculation has clearly taken place as a result of the other business having ended somewhat earlier than predicted. I am afraid that the 12-minute limit must stand, and it applies to Back-Bench speeches.

Ann Clwyd: I was flying over Burma at about 1 am this morning, and I wondered what was happening below in that country. Like many, I have not had the opportunity to visit it, but I have been to the border camps and I have for the past three years been the chair of the human rights committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which deals with the human rights of parliamentarians in trouble. We have over a five-year period heard from the Burmese in opposition, some of whom were elected in 1990. They have told us about the plight of their colleagues in Burma, and the stories are tragic. Members should be particularly concerned about the plight of our fellow parliamentarians who, unlike us, are not able to stand on any platform and speak out, or to practise their mandates.
	At the last count, 12 Burmese politicians elected in 1990 were in jail. To our knowledge, three of them are seriously ill. We have asked at the past three IPU annual conferences for those MPs to be released. We have also asked that all those elected in 1990 and all political prisoners be released. I am afraid that the generals do not listen to very much. They have had many opportunities to listen to special envoys in the past. I hope that this special envoy will be successful, but the past record of the regime is not good at persuading us that it might listen now. If the generals want to show that they are at least listening to some arguments, they should release the elected politicians who languish in jail, particularly the three who are seriously ill.
	Not only are those people in jail, but others have died in custody—six of those elected in 1990 have done so. We know that since the October crackdown, another 13 parliamentarians have been arrested and are now in jail. In total, 26 elected members of the Burmese Parliament are in jail in that country. As a gesture, the generals should at least show that they are listening to the arguments of fellow politicians all over the world.
	At the IPU conference that took place in Geneva a few weeks ago, at which several hon. Members were present, the British delegation asked for talks with the Chinese and Indian delegations and we withdrew our own emergency resolution in order to support the tough ASEAN resolution. It is worth everybody looking at that resolution, which is available on the IPU's website. It was adopted unanimously by the 117th assembly in Geneva on 10 October, which included members of Parliament from 143 countries, the Chinese and Indian delegations and all the ASEAN countries. It is significant that, again, all the ASEAN countries supported the resolution.
	This has been a good debate and people from all parties have said things with which we all agree. When I was flying over Burma this morning, I thought about the people below and about the reports by our ambassador. I would like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development to congratulate our ambassador in Burma, because his reporting in the first few days of the crackdown was significant. It was brave of him to speak out in the way that he did, and I hope that he is able to continue to do so.

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I can give her the assurance that she seeks. I had the opportunity to speak to our ambassador this morning. Not only did I congratulate him on his efforts in recent weeks, and those of his staff, but I assured him of the good wishes of all Members of the House for the conduct that British diplomats have shown in what has been an extremely trying time for themselves and their families, as well as for the people of Burma.

Ann Clwyd: I thank my right hon. Friend. I am grateful for that because I read with horror the account given by diplomats. They say that the regime probably still holds between 2,000 and 2,500 protesters. As he said, many are being detained in so-called "new life camps", which are re-education centres a long way from the capital Rangoon. People are jam-packed in rooms where the walls are covered in excrement, they are not given any food, they are being continually interrogated, subject to brutal torture, routinely beaten and soaked in ice-cold water. The Human Rights Watch report is similar:
	"We should have no illusions about what is going on in Burma. Soldiers are hunting down leaders of the protest movement and torturing them. Revered Buddhist monasteries are being occupied; the monks are being defrocked, beaten and sometimes killed. Government newspapers demand unity against 'neo-colonialist stooges'...People are afraid."
	The courts continue to try protesters in secret and hand out heavy sentences, crematoriums have been working overtime to cope with the number of dead and there have even been allegations that some injured protesters have been buried alive. We can all imagine the scene, and it has been described vividly here today. I urgently call for one thing to happen right now on behalf of the detainees who are at immediate risk. We should get the International Committee of the Red Cross back in so that it can visit the detainees to ensure that they are at least being fed.
	As I said, the IPU will continue its efforts. We have attempted to visit Burma, to no avail, but we need to keep putting pressure on neighbouring countries to initiate a regional political process in a meaningful way. We should get them to get the generals to the negotiating table. The ASEAN member states of China, India and Russia must give their full backing to the UN Secretary-General's special envoy to Burma and assist him in getting this initiative off the ground.

Daniel Kawczynski: The right hon. Lady tells the House that her group, the IPU, has tried to visit Burma, but that it has been declined entry. Does she know of any IPU country that has managed to send a delegation to Burma? Are only we being targeted?

Ann Clwyd: No, I am afraid that I know of no IPU country that has managed to get a delegation into Burma, although people obviously continue to try. Our committee is involved with the human rights of members of Parliament all over the world, and the IPU covers about 143 countries. Unfortunately, the human rights abuses that elected members suffer are getting more rather than less frequent. The IPU continues to attempt to get delegations in.
	As has been mentioned, ASEAN needs to expel Burma if there is no sign of reform. ASEAN Heads of Government will gather in Singapore for a summit towards the end of November, and that will be a good time to discuss that and other measures. I know that there is not time to say much else, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the last thing that we need is for the international community to rail against the generals and make a lot of noise but to forget again in a few months' time and allow Burma to descend into anarchy, and for the suffering of the Burmese to drag on and on and on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I feel that I must apologise to the right hon. Lady if she was misled by the clock. We have had a slight technical difficulty with it.

Mark Hunter: May I open my remarks by expressing our support for and solidarity with the pro-democracy demonstrators and supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi in particular? We would all agree that they have dealt bravely with the impossible situation in Burma and deserve all the assistance that the international community can give. I add my voice to those condemning the indiscriminate violent attacks on the demonstrators and others in Burma over the last months, and the awful human rights violations that have occurred.
	It is important to say on this occasion that those violations are continuing. There are widespread reports of the ill treatment and torture of detainees, of secret detention, and of sentencing in closed and unfair trials. The situation in Burma is still desperate. We do not know how many people are being detained, or under what conditions, or where or, in many cases, why that is happening. Amnesty International has reported that arrests continue in far greater numbers than the official figures given by the Burmese state media. Despite the regime's supposed co-operation with the UN, information about these detainees has still to be published. Surely the first step by the junta in resolving the conflict should be to publish information about those detainees, to allow immediate and independent access to them and then to release them.
	The situation for the whole country is bleak, as other right hon. and hon. Members have said. There are hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people, as a result of forced displacement, the fear of violence and political, ethnic and religious persecution. With the current social and economic conditions further exacerbated by the violence of the past few months, is it any wonder that more than a quarter of Burma's population now lives below the UN-agreed poverty line of $1 a day and that one in 10 children die before they reach their fifth birthday?
	The internally displaced people and refugees, as well as ordinary citizens, face widespread poverty and a lack of health care and education, and all depend on action from the international community. We must ensure that they are not disappointed. The Select Committee on International Development's recent report on British aid to Burma said that the £8.8 million currently allocated was an "unacceptable" level of assistance and recommended that the budget should be quadrupled by 2013.
	In the light of the events of the past month and their repercussions on the number of internally displaced people and refugees, I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement tonight that he has reconsidered the Department's aid budget to Burma; but, as had been said, even doubling it still leaves many hon. Members with considerable concern that that will prove to be insufficient for the purpose. Perhaps when the Minister responds to the debate, she could also explain to the House DFID's new spending priorities for Burma, given that timely budget increase.
	Of course, the United Nations should continue to play the leading role in resolving the issues in Burma. We certainly hope that the UN will continue to push for regular visits by the special rapporteur on human rights and Special Envoy Gambari, because it is only by continued investigation that we will establish precisely what happened during the riots and what the current situation really is. Burma must give the UN free, full and unfettered access to all areas and peoples, and those visits should be reported on and followed up by formal UN Security Council discussions to establish what, if any, progress is being made. Where no progress is made, the Security Council must act decisively and move to adopt binding sanctions, including an international arms embargo and a demand for the release of all political prisoners.
	China, in particular, has an absolutely key role to play. Although we recognise the significant movement that the Chinese have made already by supporting the formal UN Security Council statement, they also need to stand ready and willing to support the adoption of a binding Security Council resolution if one should be necessary.
	Thailand, India and the other ASEAN nations, as close neighbours and significant trading partners of Burma, also have a key role to play in resolving this issue, and they must support international mediation and reconciliation efforts. Perhaps when the Minister responds, she might inform the House whether discussions have taken place with those Governments about their trading practices with the current Burmese regime and whether they support US and EU sanctions and, if so, how they might help to bring pressure to bear on the regime.
	We welcome the extension of the EU trade and investment bans to include timber, gems and precious metals. By targeting those sectors of the Burmese economy, the EU's sanctions will be better able to strengthen their impact on the regime; but to be effective, those measures must be implemented quickly and the sanctions must be watertight. They must, for example, include goods that are processed through third countries, as most of the gems and diamonds that come into the EU from Burma do at present.
	We also welcome the agreement that a general EU investment ban will follow if the Burmese Government do not comply with the demands of the international community. However, if the international community is to keep up the pressure on the junta and the momentum on this issue, there must be a clear timeline for when such an investment ban might be implemented. Perhaps in her winding-up speech the Minister might clarify how long the Burmese Government would be given to comply with international demands before the general EU investment ban would be implemented. Will she say whether the Government have considered supporting the introduction of that ban at the next General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting if no progress has been made?
	Further sanctions should also be planned to continue to increase pressure on the Burmese authorities and to make it clear to them that the international community will not stand idly by but will continue to act if they continue to break international law and human rights agreements. A strong message needs to be sent. Those measures should perhaps include sanctions on the very lucrative oil and gas industry, and as with the investment ban, they should include a clear timeline for implementation. Perhaps the Minister might say whether discussions about further sanctions have taken place and, if so, whether they included the specific possibility of introducing future sanctions on the oil and gas industries.
	Although we acknowledge that the Government have taken a lead on this issue at EU level, we are concerned to ensure that existing sanctions are being implemented properly in all British dependencies and overseas territories. The Burma Campaign UK has reported that companies in Singapore have invested in Burma through their base in the British Virgin Islands and that an oil company has also invested in Burma through Bermuda. That will be a matter of great concern to the House.
	In fact, Bermuda has not enacted the EU sanctions in its domestic legislation at all, and Orders in Council have not been applied there. In our view, if the EU sanctions are to work properly, in partnership with the respective Governments involved, the UK Government need urgently to review the effectiveness of the implementation of EU sanctions in British overseas territories. I therefore ask the Minister to inform the House whether any such review is being undertaken. Will she also give a commitment to ensuring that new Orders in Council are introduced to guarantee that the new EU sanctions have more meaningful and immediate effect?
	In addition, the UK imported £19 million-worth of goods from Burma and exported £2 million in the first eight months of 2007. We do not, however, know the identities of the companies involved because the Government refuse to disclose their names on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. Given the understandable and increasing interest of the British public in the conflict within Burma, will the Minister reconsider the Government's decision not to disclose the names of those companies that currently invest in Burma, so that they, too, can be held to account?
	In conclusion, I am pleased that the Government have sought to make Burma the subject of this Adjournment debate. It is right and proper that the House has the opportunity to voice its concerns on this vital issue. The situation in Burma has been most grave for a long time, and the events of the past months have pulled the country dramatically back into the public eye and can leave no excuse for the international community not to act. The Government can be assured of support from the Liberal Democrats if they are serious about resolving the grave human rights abuses, if they are serious about resolving the humanitarian crisis and if they are actively engaged in helping to bring about a resolution of the crisis in Burma. For the sake of the people of that country, I very much hope that they are.

Mike Gapes: I compliment the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter), the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on their introductions to the debate. I very strongly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd)—I hope that I have pronounced the name of her constituency correctly—who talked so strongly about the situation with regard to parliamentarians.

Julian Lewis: Little Englander.

Mike Gapes: The members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs are not little Englanders; we visited the United Nations in New York two weeks ago, and we had useful discussions with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon about the situation in Burma, as well as meeting some of the exiled groups that are working in the UN to try to get democracy and human rights in their country. I shall begin my remarks with a discussion of those groups.
	There has been much concentration on the nature of the regime and the repressive events in Rangoon and elsewhere, but so far nobody has talked about the complexity and diversity of the country. Burma—Myanmar—is one of the most ethnically complicated and mixed countries in the world. More than 40 per cent. of the population are from ethnic minority groups and, for more than 20 years, there has been a series of sometimes violent rebellions against the brutal military regime. So far, many of those groups have not engaged in the current protests and pressure for democracy, but if there is to be political progress in Burma, it will be a question not just of restoring a democratically elected Government, but also of making sure that there is political dialogue and compromise to end long-standing, deep-seated and complicated regional and ethnic conflicts.
	One of our problems in dealing with the situation is the mindset of the regime. There is an interesting article, "Understanding the junta", by Nic Dunlop in the latest issue of  Prospect. I recommend that all Members read that article, because it shows clearly that the mindset of the so-called State Peace and Development Council—probably one of the most misnamed organisations ever—is based on the training the generals received from the Japanese imperial army, which established an organisation to fight against the British in the 1940s. Later, some of those generals, including the father of Aung San Suu Kyi, changed sides and joined the British to drive out the Japanese, because they realised that the Burmese people would not get their freedom by allying with the Japanese. In 1947, the British Labour Government brought about the process that led to the establishment of an independent Burmese state.
	In reality, however, there is a brutal, repressive mindset within the military that goes back to the 1940s, so we have to confront the difficult fact that those people live in a time warp and their world view will be extremely difficult to change. Mr. Gambari may try to do it, but he does not hold the cards. Reference has been made to Burma's neighbours and countries that can influence Burma. The United States does not have influence, nor does the EU, although it is right that we have sanctions policies and that we bring international pressure to bear. It is right that we do whatever we can, but it is an illusion to think that we will be able to change the nature of the regime, which will either be overthrown internally or changed through pressure from Burma's neighbours and the region.
	There has been some movement in the position of the Chinese. It is important that China recognises that the whole world is watching its behaviour now that it is a serious global player and that, as we approach the 2008 Olympics, there will be even more attention on China and its policies, both internal and international. However, even though 700 Chinese companies invest in Burma, we must recognise that China alone will not be able to change the nature of the regime.
	The ASEAN countries, including some of Burma's neighbours, have a responsibility, too. One of those countries is Thailand, which is host to a large number of the refugees who have fled across the border from Burma. However, Thailand purchases gas from the Yadana and Yetagun gas fields so it also provides the regime with its largest amount of foreign currency earnings. Unfortunately, the Thai Government, too, are now a military regime, so we need to recognise that it is not just a question of talking with the Chinese, democratic India or other countries; Thailand has a role and we need to consider how we might influence other countries to bring about change in Burma.
	Another important issue is what happens in ASEAN as a whole, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley pointed out in her remarks. An important ASEAN meeting will be held in Singapore next month to sign the ASEAN charter, which includes an agreement to establish an ASEAN human rights body. At present, there is no sign that the other nine ASEAN countries will try to expel or suspend Burma from their organisation. Indeed, it is likely that General Than Shwe, the strong man in the regime, will attend the charter signing ceremony, so we need to start to raise issues and to bring pressure internationally on ASEAN.
	Reference has been made to the remarks of the Foreign Minister of Singapore. Some of the ASEAN countries are democracies and some—for example, Indonesia and the Philippines—have been pressing for strong statements of condemnation of what has been going on in Burma. Unfortunately, some others—Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam—have some sympathy for the authoritarianism of the Burmese regime. Those countries are not as bad as Burma, but nevertheless they are not pluralistic and democratic. There is a problem in achieving early, significant shifts of approach in the region.

Ann Clwyd: I have just returned from Cambodia where we had a two-hour session with the Prime Minister, Hun Sen. We discussed the situation in Burma at length and I hope that my hon. Friend will now find that a different attitude will be taken towards Burma than has been apparent so far.

Mike Gapes: That will be welcome. We must wait to see what happens. I am aware that although the secretary-general of ASEAN said there could be "no business as usual", he also made it clear that there was no question of imposing sanctions on the Burmese regime or of suspending it.
	The origins of the immediate crisis go back to the rapid increase in fuel prices that occurred due to the bankruptcy of the economy and the fact that the military regime was running a huge budget deficit. Whatever repressive actions the regime takes and however many people it beats up, drives into exile or kills, the fundamental problems will not go away. The regime spent billions of pounds building its new capital city in the middle of the jungle. The military elite has an adequate or good living, while the mass of the people live in abject poverty. The situation was so severe that the monks protested. People did not have enough money to live on so they could not give charity to monks, who in Buddhist culture rely on charity from the community. The situation is that bad and the underlying problems will remain unless the regime begins to change.
	It is estimated that, in the 1990 election, a very large number of people in the military voted for the National League for Democracy, and that even now there is significant support within the military for possible reform and opening up, but of course the dinosaurs at the top will do everything possible to resist that change. It is to be hoped that someone in the regime will recognise that there needs to be transformation, compromise and dialogue.
	Just as Nelson Mandela was let out of prison in South Africa to ensure a peaceful and democratic transition, so Aung San Suu Kyi should be released from house arrest and should be put in a position in which she, in discussion with her political colleagues, can act as a conduit and a force for the transformation of Burma into a pluralistic and democratic society. That is the best way forward for Burma, and that is a way to ensure an easing of the international pressure for sanctions, isolation, and targeted measures against members of the regime. If Burma does not take that way forward, Asian countries and the rest of the world will ratchet up the pressure, and the country's underlying economic problems will not be resolved. There is a way out for Burma, if it has the courage to take it.

John Bercow: Rape as a weapon of war, extra-judicial killings, compulsory relocation, forced labour, the use of child soldiers on a scale proportionately greater than in any other country of the world, the use of human minesweepers, the incarceration of political prisoners in conditions of unspeakable bestiality, religious persecution, water torture and the destruction of more than 3,000 villages in eastern Burma in the past decade are all chapters in the story of savagery that has shamed the Burmese military junta in the eyes of the world.
	In the past three years, I have twice visited the Thai-Burma border and, in September this year, I returned from a week-long visit to the India-Burma border. Those visits left indelible impressions on my mind. I will never forget hearing testimony about a man who was dangled over a hot fire as part of his punishment. I will never forget speaking to a man who had been incarcerated and beaten throughout the night, and who had suffered the humiliation and agony of having his body swung repeatedly against a pillar. I will never forget hearing testimony about a man in Insein prison who was so malnourished, so ravaged, and so painfully thin that, in the words of my interlocutor, it was possible to see his intestines moving like worms.
	I will never forget meeting a boy, now aged seven, who at the tender age of three was forcibly abducted by Government troops for use as bait, taken to a remote army camp, placed in a cold, stone room with a mud floor and no windows, and kept there for no fewer than eight hours without being offered food or water. I will never forget, on my first visit to the Thai-Burma border in April 2004, meeting parents who had seen their children shot dead in front of them, and meeting children who had seen their parents shot dead in front of them. I will never forget the stories of the barbaric mutilation that regularly takes place, courtesy of the Burmese army, the Tatmadaw. We are talking about eyes being gouged out, tongues being ripped out, noses being chopped off, and heads being chopped off. Above all, I will never forget the harrowing, chilling stories about heads being placed on pillars or posts in prominent parts of villages as a warning of what might lie in store for anyone who dared to rebel, or simply to presume safely to exist as a member of a minority.
	In light of the present situation, I have to call to mind all the experiences of the past 45 years and ask the House: what is new? The human rights abuses are not new, because as my right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the shadow Foreign Secretary, noted, they have been taking place for 45 years under the auspices of the barbaric and illegitimate Government. There is nothing new there. The abuses are not unrecorded, so there has been no new discovery of historical events; on the contrary, for decades, the abuses have been extensively documented by Amnesty International, by Human Rights Watch, by the Burma Campaign and—if I may say so with particular force and admiration—by Christian Solidarity Worldwide, whose Asia advocacy officer, Ben Rogers, has in recent years undertaken no fewer than 18 visits to the Thai-Burma border, and many visits to other borders. So there is nothing new there, either. There has been no revelation to the international community. Indeed, I think it fair and safe to say that, on the whole, the international community has been conscious of the nature, scale and recurrence of the abuses, but has by and large thought it politic to look the other way—to turn a blind eye and discuss a more convenient or comfortable subject.
	I remember asking the then Prime Minister about the situation in Burma on 8 November 2004, and his reply was revealing and salutary. He said, at the Dispatch Box, that it was really only the absence of television cameras in Burma and a number of other places of despotism that enabled the dictators to get away with their ill-gotten gains and to cling to their power for so long. Now, the situation has changed, at least in the sense that we have learned of the nature of the abuses with an intensity that was previously denied to us. We have seen the bravery, courage, sacrifice and sheer undiluted heroism of the monks and others, and we have seen the sheer viciousness of the response from what must undoubtedly be one of the most egregious abusers of human rights to be found anywhere on the face of the planet.
	Of course, we have to ask what we can do to bring about change. Every speaker tonight has asked that question and sought to answer it. My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary and others correctly referred to the role of the European Union. I am sorry to say that hitherto it has been fiddling around in the undergrowth, and its position has been to opt for the lowest common denominator. It has sought sanctions in the form of action against the pineapple juice sector and a tailor's shop in Rangoon. I am delighted that as a consequence of concerted pressure, of continued publicity and of remorseless protest from the international community and millions of ordinary people, it has now gone beyond that. Worthwhile sanctions are now in place, but we need to monitor them to ensure that they are enforced. As the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) said, we have to be sure that they are not effectively flouted via a circuitous route through the use of third countries. We should go for a comprehensive investment ban.
	Let me make one other suggestion about the European Union: why do we not suggest, and advocate as policy, a ban on the provision of insurance cover to companies that trade with the regime? It is difficult to envisage companies being willing to trade with it if they cannot get insurance cover. There is a role for the European Union, and a role for the United Nations; that has to be pre-eminent. We need a Security Council resolution of a binding character that sets out, in terms, the actions that are required of the regime and an exacting timetable within which they have to be performed. That resolution should say that Aung San Suu Kyi should be freed; that all remaining political prisoners must be released; that there should be clear, free and unimpeded access both for humanitarian aid organisations and for those undertaking professional responsibilities to assess the human rights situation on the ground; and that there must be meaningful progress in tripartite talks with the National League for Democracy—the true victors of the 1990 elections—and representatives of the ethnic national groups, failing which, intensified sanctions, particularly the imposition of a comprehensive arms embargo, will follow.
	Of course, there is a role for others, too. India and China are central, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) acknowledged. It pains me to reflect that India's behaviour is getting worse at a time at which China's might be considered to be getting a little better. How can the country of Gandhi and Nehru behave as it does, selling attack helicopters and the arsenals of potential destruction and certainly of human rights violation to this appalling regime? It simply is not right. It is not right that China does so; it is not right that Russia does so; it is not right that Serbia does so; it is not right that Ukraine does so; and it is not right that the member states of the Association of South East Asian Nations continue to do so. There comes a point at which we must say, "When will nations choose respect for human rights and democratic values over the reckless pursuit of filthy lucre?" As the hon. Member for Cheadle said, of course, it is right that Britain should put the priority of public interest and the availability of information ahead of the excuse of commercial confidentiality for companies importing goods and other equipment from Burma. I thought that the figure in 2006 was about £26 million-worth of goods. Companies that import goods from Burma should be named and shamed. People have a right to know the country of origin and the method of production of the goods that they are invited to buy.
	I agree very much with what my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary said, and I think that it will be echoed later by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), the shadow Secretary of State for International Development. We should embrace wholeheartedly the recommendations of the International Development Committee to quadruple aid, to facilitate greater cross-border assistance, and to back the women's organisations and trade union groups that have toiled in the vineyard for years to help the dispossessed and the disadvantaged. We should support a range of exiled organisations, which not only have practical experience and worth to contribute, but should be part of the reconfigured arrangements in a new constitutional democracy in Burma.

Daniel Kawczynski: I am extremely pleased at what my hon. Friend said about British companies importing goods from Burma. My understanding is that we import £26 million-worth of such goods, so does he agree—and I think that he alluded to this—that those companies should be named and shamed?

John Bercow: I certainly do. We have to do a great deal more, and ultimately, we have to decide how we are going to deal with a regime that is as despotic as the Burmese regime. One of the most horrific recent revelations was the report, supposedly unconfirmed but probably reliable, that the crematoriums were working overtime, burning the bodies of the regime's slaughtered victims. Any regime that can behave in that way must be decisively confronted and defeated, rather than continually appeased.

Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend's powerful description of that behaviour is, as he says, not a new description of that regime. It is not new, either, in the history of totalitarian Governments of both left and right. Is it not strange that many of the countries that he listed as helping the Burmese dictatorship claim to have broken with, or at least moved away from, totalitarian dictatorship themselves? Cannot more be done to try to show those countries that if they are to live up to the claims that they make for their own political evolution, they must put pressure on the Burmese Government?

John Bercow: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that underlines the importance of a much wider and more sophisticated concept of national interest. Many countries say that they do not want to interfere. We know perfectly well that, under international law, it cannot possibly be justified for a state to hide behind the cloak of sovereignty by practising egregious human rights abuses, so the doctrine of humanitarian intervention is well established in international law.
	My response to other countries that are considering whether to give support to, or to trade with, Burma is simply that they do not know what the consequence of their behaviour may be. It is not simply a question of damaging consequences for individual citizens living in Burma but of the spread of disease; of an increase in the arms trade; and of regional and global insecurity that could result from a rogue state that is left untamed. It is a tiger that is on the loose, and it has to be dealt with decisively. Ultimately it comes down to the question of whether the member countries of the United Nations are prepared collectively to decide that the UN is an instrument of necessary change in the world, or whether they are content merely for the UN to be a symbol of passive acceptance of a thoroughly unsatisfactory status quo. I hope that it is the former, not the latter. I rejoice in the fact that there is substantial consensus on many issues across the House. We need to ensure that there is priority, focus, determination, resolution and clarity in public policy. That is right in itself, it is what the people of Burma need, and it is what they most certainly deserve.

Gordon Banks: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who made an eloquent, expansive, moving and informative speech.
	The whole country is deeply disturbed by the recent events in Burma, which are arguably the result of decades of oppression. The Burmese regime may have hoped that by closing down the internet and targeting the media it could hide its crimes from the eyes of the world. If so, it has failed. Horrific repression has provoked disgust and anger across the globe. The suppression of democracy, as well as beatings, forced displacement, killings, arbitrary detention, forced labour, rape and the recruitment of child soldiers are just some of the tools used in Burma. The Burmese regime can be summed up in a few words—oppressive, abhorrent, brutal, and barbarous—but with your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to express my absolute disgust with the regime in a few more words.
	As we have heard, the military regime imposed a reign of fear on the people more than 40 years ago, and it has crushed protests ever since. It remains steadfast in its opposition to free speech, worship and assembly, but the Burmese people's desire for freedom continues. That was vividly expressed when Aung San Suu Kyi's pro-democracy party won the election, but we all know that the results were ignored by the military, so instead of ruling her country, she was placed under house arrest, where she remains to this day. The freedom fight continued, however, and on 19 August this year, brave Burmese students took to the streets to protest against increases in the price of fuel, food and other basic items, as we have heard. Essentially, those already poor and desperate people were denied their most fundamental rights while the military regime continued to construct and maintain one of the world's largest armies. Burma has the 12th largest army in the world, with nearly 430,000 active troops, thus dwarfing our own armed forces and those of France and Germany.
	Students throughout the world have stood up against oppression, whether in Tiananmen square in 1989 or on the streets of Belgrade in 1992, and it was no different in Burma in 2007. Those students—hopefully, some of them will be Burma's future thinkers and leaders—were arrested in midnight raids, left to die in their cells, and killed under interrogation. In the days after 19 August, as demonstrations grew, those who remained outside the crowded prison cells marched in Rangoon, joined by Burmese monks, who are no strangers to protest. Bullets were fired, and tear gas was directed at crowds that reportedly reached 100,000 strong. As the saffron revolution began, many monks were beaten. Let that thought stay with the House tonight: Buddhist monks beaten as they protested on the streets. The monks, once the most respected group in Burma, are not safe from the state-sponsored violence and repression.
	As the Prime Minister said, we must not turn away. As Edmund Burke said, all that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing. It takes a brave person, but also a desperate one, to face down a loaded gun and stand up for what they believe to be right. We should salute that bravery here today, but also send the message to Burma to let the Burmese people know that we stand alongside the good men and women of the pro-democracy movement in their fight. We cannot march with them, but we have the power to effect change.
	I doubt that there was significant belief among the protesters that their actions alone could bring down this oppressive regime, but any small hope that they may have endured was brutally shattered when the crackdown was launched: monasteries raided, as we have heard, thousands arrested, and unknown numbers killed. Some of the protestors were as young as seven. We hear rumours of hastily arranged cremations designed to hide the number of the dead. Is this 1940s Europe or modern day Burma? What could be going through the minds of Burmese soldiers to make them shoot their own people? Is this the same evil that ran through the minds of the Nazi SS troops? Are they only following orders or do they believe that killing their own people is the right thing to do?
	The steps to be taken in Burma are clear: end the violence, release the political prisoners and grant access to the international community. The only obstacle to a stable and prosperous Burma is the regime itself. There is no reason why Burma cannot match the economic success of its neighbours and go on to become a strong player on the international trading stage. Once the world's foremost exporter of rice, it can again be, with our help and the willingness to change on the part of the military regime.
	We have seen recently that the US and the EU have instituted firmer actions against the regime, but the UK and all other nations need to utilise all their diplomatic and economic leverage to help the Burmese people reclaim their freedom. I am thankful that our Government have announced the additional £1 million of urgent aid to Burma to attempt to deliver support to those in real need, and I am glad that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are exploring other avenues. However, on the issue of support to the Burmese people we can go further.
	I thank the Secretary of State for International Development for his commitment today and trust that he will continue to review the issues of funding to projects to promote human rights and democracy in Burma. I understand that our Government are preparing for the future should reconciliation occur, and recent international meetings are an important step. It is important to look at how Burma can be supported if it demonstrates real and verifiable progress. If such a situation should develop, our primary priorities should be access to health care, education and debt relief. Those measures will hopefully encourage the regime genuinely to work towards reconciliation. But if progress is insufficient, too slow or piecemeal, stronger options must be considered.
	On the issue of health care, the closure of two Red Cross stations in March was deeply regrettable. We cannot allow international posturing to distract us from the fact that people are needlessly suffering through disease and injury as the Red Cross is forced to the sidelines. I urge the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development, as other hon. Members have done here tonight, to do all in their power to have the International Red Cross and other aid agencies allowed back into Burma.
	To return to international pressure, the UK Government's key aim is to mobilise support, particularly among Burma's neighbours. The Burmese situation should be troubling to China for several reasons: Burma is on its doorstep and Beijing is wrong to think that domestic unrest in Burma has no regional impact. Burma is a country transformed in recent years into a virtual client state, where the Chinese are building roads, burning forests and backing gas projects. However, we are grateful for their support for the latest UN Security Council statement and for the facilitation of access for the UN special envoy. Ibrahim Gambari has been instrumental in opening new dialogue between the military and Aung San Suu Kyi's pro-democracy party. The pressure that that brought about must be maintained. China must stay involved in the process and the international community is watching China closely in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics.
	I take this opportunity to urge the Royal Bank of Scotland, which has a 8.25 per cent. holding in the Bank of China, to use its position to bring about a change in attitude of Sinopec and PetroChina, and dare I say, even the Bank of China itself. It should not rest easy with the Royal Bank of Scotland shareholders that they are benefiting from the profits of Burmese repression.

John Bercow: What the hon. Gentleman has just said is absolutely right. Does he agree, however, that we simply cannot within the EU be in any way complacent about this matter? Will he concur with me that it is frankly the most damning indictment of a democratic Government, namely that of France, that Total Oil should be engaged in a $400 million investment to prop up the sadistic thugs who rule Burma? Is it not about time that they reconsidered and stopped offering sanctimonious humbug and self-serving rhetoric about their tiny little humanitarian aid projects when they are there for the filthy lucre?

Gordon Banks: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps if we gathered some more information regarding UK trading and investments within Burma, we could apply our own individual pressures in that way as well.
	It is also grossly unacceptable that the First Minister of Scotland seeks to make Burma an ally in his conflict with the Westminster Government.
	Despite Burma's massive army, it is a fragile state where the danger of fragmentation is real. Insurgencies and drug warlord militias could easily fill a vacuum, and that is certainly something that no one wants to see. China can be a strong voice for reform in Burma, but, as we have heard tonight, it should by no means be the only one. Thailand must also accept responsibility as a primary funder of the military regime by its purchase of Burmese gas. India is another country that must live up to its responsibilities in the region. Its uncritical relationship with the regime is very disappointing and I hope that recent representations made by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will assist in moving the Indian position. India is the largest democracy in the world, and economically supporting such a repressive regime must be made to embarrass politicians in India.
	The international approach is so vital. The protesters know that the regime will not relinquish power at the behest of the Burmese people alone. The leaders have no interest in the people and never will. The real drivers of change and reform must be Aung San Suu Kyi, the democratic political opposition and the ethnic groups in Burma. The protesters need to know that their voice is having an impact on us here in the west. As the protesters speak directly to us they are saying, "We are here. Look at what is happening. Please help us." Those people and indeed the world are watching this Parliament today to see that we are doing everything in our power to bring these atrocities to an end and to send the strongest and clearest message to Burma that this action will no longer be tolerated.
	We all know that we have strong colonial ties to Burma and I am sure that many in the Chamber will, like me, have had family stationed there, and that places an additional responsibility on the UK to seek a resolution to the current problems and to ensure Burma's future.
	But before I bring my remarks to a close, I want to talk briefly about the role of Aung San Suu Kyi. This remarkable woman has spent 12 years under house arrest as she has watched her country descend into chaos. We debate in this Parliament about whether 28 days' detention without charge is acceptable, yet this woman has been held hostage for 12 years and her only crime has been a desire to make Burma a better place in which to live. Her struggle is one of the most extraordinary examples of civil courage in Asia, and indeed the world, in recent decades. She has become an important symbol in the struggle against oppression and serves as an example to others around the world. Her name, along with that of Mahatma Gandhi, will echo through time as a leading light of non-violent protest in support of human rights. I am sure that many in this House will join me in looking forward to the day when she gains her rightful place as the leader of Burma.

John Bercow: I am incredibly grateful because the hon. Gentleman not only makes a very good speech, but has also proved to be highly generous in giving way to me. What he says about Aung San Suu Kyi is absolutely right. Will he further agree with me—she is undoubtedly the world's greatest heroine today—that the regime in Burma has no moral entitlement whatever to say, "Yes, we will meet her, but on condition a, b or c?" The regime that is guilty of ethnic cleansing, of war crimes, of crimes against humanity and probably of genocide should agree unconditionally to meet someone who is far greater than any of them will ever be.

Gordon Banks: No one would disagree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
	I hope that the regime will come to realise, if it does not already, that significant movement is urgently required and that the international community will not tolerate the continuation of recent atrocities. I also hope that the focus on Burma in this House tonight will play its part in creating the momentum required to bring about the necessary change and end the rule of that repressive, barbaric junta.

Nigel Evans: It is a privilege to participate in this debate, which is rightly full of passion—there have been some excellent speeches.
	Everyone in this country, never mind in this House, was repulsed by the pictures from Burma, where people who were complaining about their plight and the starvation and poverty levels under which many of them were living engaged in peaceful protests. They wanted their view to be known, and they were joined by monks, who are revered by the people of Burma and who live among them. The people wanted peacefully to demonstrate against what they saw was wrong, but they were beaten, arrested and persecuted. A heavy hammer came down on anyone who dared to speak against or threaten the regime, which has existed for far too long.
	We must remember how hideous the regime is. I mentioned earlier in the debate James Mawdsley, who visited that country. Many Christians live in Burma, and they are persecuted—for example, they cannot move about as we can here, because the multiplicity of faiths that we have here is simply not allowed in Burma. James Mawdsley was distributing Bibles, and he was arrested and put in prison, which shows what sort of regime we are discussing.
	One reason why we can see what is going on at this juncture is the bravery of journalists, some of whom have visited Burma under cover. They have reported what is going on in that hideous regime, and it is important that they continue to do so. We are grateful for the risks that they take and for the work that they do.
	Aung San Suu Kyi has been mentioned many times. She has experienced 12 years of illegal detention, and she is an iconic figure who personifies the fight and struggle of the ordinary people of Burma to be free. She is the only imprisoned Nobel peace prize laureate in the world. Glenys Kinnock MEP never spoke a truer word when she said last week:
	"Aung San Suu Kyi symbolises the Burmese people's struggle for freedom. She is isolated, denied her liberty, her voice stifled and her communications cut".
	Aung San Suu Kyi is a beacon of light in that country. She has demonstrated a tremendous commitment to liberty. She has been likened to Gandhi, because of the way in which she has peacefully sought to promote what everyone in this country takes for granted.
	The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) mentioned parliamentarians in Burma who are now sitting in prison, and we must remember our responsibility as parliamentarians to them. Sometimes people ask what is the point in having yet another debate about yet another country in the House of Commons and in having yet another march—there was a march through the streets of London only a few weeks ago, when people showed their solidarity with the people of Burma. Today, a veteran of the 1988 demonstrations, who went to jail for six and a half years, explained to me that the message that they are not forgotten will get through to ordinary people in Burma and to people who are languishing in jails in Burma today. When people marched through the streets of London, people also marched throughout the world. That has not gone unnoticed, and it will give people in Burma succour and strength to know that we are thinking about them and the conditions in which they live.

Oliver Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also important that the Karen, the Karenni and other ethnic minorities, who have suffered appallingly at the hands of the regime, should take succour from the fact that we have not forgotten them?

Nigel Evans: One of the merits of this debate is that we can share our experiences, such as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who has had first-hand conversations with those who have been persecuted by the regime, and those of people in our constituencies—and that message will not stay only in this House. We know that the Government are listening to us tonight, and they will also listen to what the people of Burma are saying about what they feel should be done. I will discuss what the protesters, both in 1988 and of a few weeks ago, want to see us do.

John Bercow: Pursuant to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), it has perhaps been under-mentioned that cultural genocide against the Karen, Karenni, Chin, Shan, Mon, Arakan and Rohingya peoples is a fact of life in that country. Is my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) aware that a particularly obnoxious form of human rights abuse is now being practised in Chin state, where the Government of Burma are deliberately promoting the sale of industrial-strength alcohol and targeting it at women in particular with a view to damaging health and wrecking another ethnic minority? Is that not a further example of despicable behaviour?

Nigel Evans: Everyone agrees that we are discussing one of the worst regimes in the world—it has some stiff competition. The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has said that there are complex cultures in Burma, and the situation is not straightforward by any stretch of the imagination, but the fact that various sects and groups of people who live in Burma are persecuted is deplorable. My hon. Friend has mentioned that the crematoriums are working overtime in order to destroy the evidence of what the regime is doing. However, if the regime thinks that it is going to get away with it, it should think again, because it will not get away with it.
	Many of the people who were involved in the 1988 campaign against the regime have come forward again during these protests. The one thing that cannot be extinguished is the spirit of the people, who are fighting for liberty—their lives may be extinguished, but the campaign goes on. The campaign will go on in Burma until the hideous regime is removed.

Julian Lewis: One organisation that has not been mentioned so far is the International Criminal Court. Given that the court was set up specifically to deal with war crimes and that it exists on a standing basis, which means that a special organisation would not need to be established, is it not possible to indict before the International Criminal Court the perpetrators of the atrocities of which we have heard so much?

Nigel Evans: It is certain that those people must be brought to justice, and there is a mechanism by which that can happen. I hope that the Minister has listened to my hon. Friend and will see whether anything can be done to advance that cause, which would send the right message to the people of Burma in their struggle for freedom.
	As I have said, Aung San Suu Kyi is iconic; there are no two ways about it. She is a leading figure who acts as a focus for people around the world, in showing determination, not giving up and continuing the struggle in conditions of repression. We must remember that she is not alone; others in Burma are also continuing the struggle. I want to draw attention to two activists, both leaders of the '88 generation of students. They have each spent 14 of the past 19 years in prison for daring to stand up to the junta.
	Htay Kywe managed to spend several weeks on the run following the most recent protests. During that time, he issued statements calling for the release of other human rights activists and pointed out human rights violations that had been committed. He was one of the signatories of an open letter that took up the Burma issue with the United Nations Security Council; because of that, I am worried that he is likely to have been particularly badly treated following his arrest on 13 October. The second human rights activist is "Jimmy" Kyaw Min Yu, a prominent campaigner who went into hiding last month. His wife Nilar is still on the run. They have a four-month-old baby. Those brave men are being held in atrocious conditions, and if the past is any indicator, they will be tortured—without access to a lawyer, on trumped-up charges and with the prospect of years in prison.
	Clearly, we need to keep up the pressure on the regime. Stiffening up the United Nations resolution has been mentioned. I was involved in the Inter-Parliamentary Union discussions in Geneva not long ago, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley; Burma was debated as an emergency resolution. Clearly, there was competition from those who wanted to debate Iraq, but we felt that the resolution on Burma was far more urgent.
	I sat on the committee that considered the resolution asking for arms sanctions against the country. That anybody should be trading arms to Burma in this day and age defies reason. Furthermore, why would anyone want to trade with that country? Any money helping to prop up the regime—whether pound, euro or yuan—is blood money, and we must crack down on it. The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley said that 143 countries were represented at the meeting, but on the committee there were representatives of China and India, and getting our resolution through, as we finally did, was not always easy. That resolution from the IPU Geneva conference is hard-hitting and I hope that the Minister has seen it. I also hope that it will be taken on board as a demonstration of how many parliamentarians throughout the world wish action to be taken against the regime.

John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is also a wider principle? As a general rule, dictators make bad business partners. If someone feeds the monster, it could end up devouring them.

Nigel Evans: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but there is also the moral point of view: how can people sleep at night when they know that they are helping prop up a regime that carries out the atrocities that we have spoken about? That regime can turn on a group of peaceful protesters and imprison, torture and kill them. Is that what those propping up the regime want to be involved in? As far as I am concerned, they should question their consciences on an hourly basis.
	We have mentioned China, India and Thailand. They and all the other ASEAN countries are important; they all have a role in trying to convince the regime that its time is up and it is time to move on. I hope that none of those countries abdicates its responsibilities; it is important that they all use their influence in every way, shape and form with the junta and its hideous regime.
	I understand that the ASEAN countries have been reluctant to suspend Burma from their group. What does the Burma regime need to do before those countries say, "Enough is enough"? I cannot think of anything worse that that so-called Government can do. The wake-up call is there; in the light of the fresh reports from Burma, I hope that the ASEAN countries will consider their responsibility not to involve themselves with the regime.
	I mentioned the '88 generation, which works a lot with civil society in Burma. It is right that we give aid that gets through to the Burmese people, but we should also give aid to elements of civil society operating within the country, which are trying to bring about change. It is important that we do that.
	I shall finish by quoting from the letter sent by the '88 student generation to Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, on 16 October; it casts light on the situation. It starts by saying:
	"As you know, we are on the run and may be arrested any day. Even under this situation, we are still committed to work for national reconciliation in Burma by peaceful means. This may be the last letter we send to you before our own arrest and torture and we send it with the utmost urgency."
	I hope that the United Nations will think long and hard about that letter and what it says the UN should do. I spoke with an artist from the '88 group who was imprisoned for six and a half years. He was beaten and has been persecuted, but he loves Burma. He has married an English lady and is about to have a child. He wishes to return to the country, but he wants to see change there. That must happen. His spirit and that of the people in prison in Burma tonight will live on until the regime falls.

Daniel Kawczynski: I should like to start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who made an extremely eloquent speech and has campaigned on Burma for a long time. I have had the privilege of coming with people from Burma to some of the events that he has hosted in the House of Commons and I applaud his continued efforts on that front.
	My hon. Friend made one of the most important points of this debate. We are debating this issue today because it is topical and the television cameras have been broadcasting events in the past few weeks. Yet, as my hon. Friend said, the situation is nothing new; it has been going on for years. There has been repression in Burma year after year, and later in my speech I shall come to a suggestion that I would like the Minister to consider.
	Burma is important to us. I have spoken to constituents of mine who fought in Burma during the second world war. That period has been little mentioned in this debate, yet those constituents told me of the harrowing conditions that they suffered in fighting fascism and dictatorship in Burma. They do not want their struggle to have been in vain; they do not want us to allow the dictatorship to prosper.
	There is a new consensus among our youngsters. Many young British citizens expect us to do something about Burma and want us to get involved. I have received a lot of letters from young constituents urging me to speak in this debate and wanting us as a country to do something. No longer can we say that Burma is a far-away country with little strategic value to us; that is simply not acceptable to our fellow British citizens.
	One of the best things to happen when we were dealing with the awful oppression and Soviet tyranny in eastern Europe was the focus on human rights. The Helsinki agreement in 1975 was pivotal to ensuring that such dictatorships were held to account. For the first time, they were forced to acknowledge that human rights issues had to be at the core of discussions and of a civilised society. I am convinced that the Helsinki agreement in '75 was a catalyst for the eventual collapse of dictatorship and oppression in eastern Europe. We need to work with our partners in the far east to undertake a similar exercise. Burma is not the only country in the far east that faces oppression—North Korea is another, and quite a few others treat their populations brutally. It is controversial to say this, but I genuinely believe that no matter what the Minister does now—and I very much urge her to take action—she and her colleagues will need to take some serious steps, with a long-term strategy along the lines of the Helsinki agreement, to ensure that such regimes in the far east realise the importance of human rights.
	I should like to talk briefly about international co-operation. When I intervened on the Secretary of State, he said that it was unhelpful to compare the stances of China and India, but I disagree. It is very important to differentiate those two countries. China will not, in all likelihood, act in this matter. China oppresses its citizens in Tibet and there are many violations against its own people. I am therefore rather sceptical about thinking that the Chinese will intervene. They have said publicly that this should be resolved by the Burmese people themselves, they do not want to lose potential energy deals, and they provide funds and succour to the junta.

Gordon Banks: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the focus on Beijing is something that the western democracies should be drawing to China's attention? In 2008, China will no doubt want to be the beacon of the world, and it cannot achieve that if it does not act in line with the responsibilities that the democratic and western world expects of it.

Daniel Kawczynski: I entirely concur. However, there are two different beasts. The Chinese Government must be approached differently, although very strongly, from the other ASEAN countries. We talked about Burma's borders with India, Malaysia and Thailand. Last week, I spoke to the Malaysian Foreign Minister in preparation for this debate. He expressed a willingness to try to put pressure on the Burmese Government but was frustrated by the lack of action by other ASEAN partners in working constructively together on this. We should put pressure on the Chinese but at the same time work on the other ASEAN countries.
	I want to make a brief criticism of the aid situation.

Julian Lewis: Before my hon. Friend moves on to that new area, does he agree that the letter quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was reminiscent of nothing so much as the despairing broadcasts of the patriots in the Hungarian uprising in 1956? Does he also agree that the scenes of oppression that were witnessed were reminiscent, as regards China, of nothing so much as Tiananmen square? If we carry those parallels further, both regimes, having suppressed revolt, went on to loosen up the degree of repression, with beneficial results. Does he think that that might yet be reflected in Burma, providing that we continue to make enough of an outcry?

Daniel Kawczynski: Yes, I completely agree. What is happening in Burma is tantamount to what happened in Budapest in '56 and what happened in other eastern European countries. We must keep up the pressure on these dictators.

John Bercow: On the subject of there not yet being enough of an outcry, may I put it to my hon. Friend, with absolutely no disrespect or pejorative intent towards the Minister, that it is imperative that from now on these matters are raised at the highest level—by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others—precisely because it sends to the regime the signal that we accord these matters the appropriate priority and it should take its cue from that?

Daniel Kawczynski: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and entirely agree with everything that he has said.
	In the past, our Government have promised an increase in aid if there is genuine reform. Of course, that is ridiculous, as the junta has no intention of reforming in any way. That is why I am pleased that the Secretary of State announced that regardless of reform the Government are prepared to increase aid from £8.8 million to £18 million per annum by 2010. However, international statistics show that a country in Africa that is comparable to Burma, with similar levels of poverty and population, would receive £80 million in aid. I still believe that, as other hon. Members have said, £18 million is nowhere near enough to help this country, facing the crisis that it does. I do not understand why the Minister feels that the increase to £18 million is sufficient when comparable countries in Africa receive four times that amount, and I hope that she will explain that.
	I support what other hon. Members have said about the importance of supporting a UN arms embargo. That is absolutely essential. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham raised the very important issue of British companies that are dealing with Burma. We import £26 million-worth of products, which I find shocking. The least that the Minister can do is to assure us that all the regime's assets have been frozen, or will be frozen, and that she will do something with regard to the £26 million of imports that British companies are bringing into our country. Interestingly, the Treasury refuses to name British companies, citing confidentiality, but I understand that the Secretary of State could have the information released if he deemed it in the national interest. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said, it is in the national interest to know which British companies are dealing with these barbarians. I certainly do not want to purchase anything that has been brought from that country under these circumstances. We need to know what these products are so that we can boycott them.
	The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) made many good points, but the one that resonated particularly with me concerned the Burmese soldiers. Those soldiers seem to be prepared to shoot their fellow citizens, and that is the only thing that sustains the regime. How can they shoot their fellow Burmese—their kith and kin? Having watched the revolution in Romania in 1989, I remember that what really did for Ceausescu was the army's refusal to shoot on its fellow Romanians—that is why that despot fell. I hope that Burmese soldiers will eventually disobey orders and not shoot their fellow citizens.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) gave a very important message when he said that events in this Chamber eventually percolate down to people on the streets of Burma.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is giving an excellent account to which I have listened with care and interest. He seems to be making the same case as my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Buckingham (John Bercow)—that the only way in which this matter will be kept at the forefront of popular imagination is if this House ensures that it is debated and considered carefully and regularly, for it is a mix of political, diplomatic and economic pressure that will ultimately force the Burmese Government to relent in the interests of decency, democracy and justice.

Daniel Kawczynski: I entirely concur. I very much hope that more Members of Parliament will join my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham—I am not a one-man fan club, but he does do an awful lot—in highlighting this subject and demanding that the Government give more time for such debates.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley said that what we say in this House seeps through to the country in question. I, too, genuinely believe that what we say in this House will somehow be heard on the streets of Rangoon and in the other towns. My message to the soldiers is this: put down your guns and cherish your brethren, and do not prop up these brutes any longer.

Nigel Evans: I wanted to re-emphasise the fact that what is said gets through, even to people in prison—even to those isolated in solitary confinement. Somehow or other, people are able to get the message through, and it is important that they continue to do that work.

Daniel Kawczynski: Yes, I absolutely agree.
	I would like to end my speech by saying that, with a view to this debate, I looked at BBC coverage from 1988 and compared it with the 2007 media coverage —my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley referred to the role of the media. I found a vast improvement in the coverage by the BBC, and other channels, of the brutality of what is happening in Burma. That is partly because viewers are more interested in what is going on and consequently the BBC and others are making sure that they report on it. I applaud the BBC's coverage of the past few weeks, and I urge it to do whatever it can to ensure that British citizens are kept abreast of what is happening in this brutal dictatorship, to show great support for our Burmese friends who are struggling in this campaign.

Sammy Wilson: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. Perhaps I shall not bring to it the same detailed knowledge and passion we heard from the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow)—and others, in case he thinks that I am the second member of his fan club here today. Anyone listening to the passion and detail with which he described events could be nothing but moved. It illustrated why it is important to have such debates in this place, and leads me to one of the reasons why I wanted to take part.
	Since becoming a Member of this House a couple of years ago, I have found that despite all the cynicism we might have about this country, which is sometimes engendered by our own behaviour in the House and by the comments of journalists and commentators, the letters I receive and the lobby groups I meet at Westminster make it clear that this country and its Parliament are often a beacon of hope for oppressed people throughout the world, shining for them and showing them that people in a democracy care about their plight. Sometimes in the darkness of their oppression they can feel that they are forgotten, so it is important that we are having this debate today.
	The debate is also important because, just as Parliament is a beacon of hope to those people, it is a cause for concern to oppressive regimes. They know that the spotlight that shines from such debates, and the actions generated by them, will ensure that their dark deeds are exposed and that the sort of activities in which they engage against their own citizens will not go unnoticed. I wanted to take part in the debate for that reason. Moreover, Members from England, Scotland and Wales have spoken, and I want to make it clear that representatives from the whole United Kingdom see this issue as one of concern.
	The abuses of the Burmese regime have been well highlighted, illustrated and documented in the debate and I do not want to take up time by adding to that. However, I welcome the outline given to us at the start of the debate regarding the Government's actions. Although many Members expressed reservations about the effectiveness of those actions or how far the Government have gone, it is nevertheless important that we take the issue seriously as a country, and put pressure on the United Nations and directly on the regime to give hope to those who find themselves oppressed.
	As a result of that pressure, we are seeing more concerted action, whether it is from Australia, which is now taking action with regard to the bank accounts of some of the members of the regime; Japan, which used to be supportive of the regime and has now withdrawn investment for the building of a university; or the United States, which has taken action with regard to visas, bank accounts and the purchase of gemstones.
	One thing that strikes me in all this is that even as the sanctions were announced, the regime in Burma was arresting more people. It is still refusing the Red Cross access to prisons. New reports are coming out of further abuses of prisoners, and the regime is so confident that it can ride out the storm that it has even announced the latest auction for the sale of gemstones, which could net it somewhere in the region of $100 million—a very important source of foreign currency at a time when economic pressure has been put on the country.
	One of the reasons why such things are happening is that although actions have been taken and sanctions have been imposed by the countries I mentioned, the countries that can really bring pressure to bear on the Burmese regime have not, to date, shown that they disapprove in any way. I can understand why the Chinese, for example, might feel that they have some economic justification for not leaning too hard on Burma. They rely on Burma for fuel; 40 hydroelectric power schemes are financed by the Chinese, 17 oil and gas fields are being exploited by them and a 1,500-mile gas and oil pipeline is being built. They also want naval bases and other monitoring stations on the Indian ocean. The ASEAN countries have behaved in exactly the same way. There is a certain irony in the fact that, at a time when monks were gunned down and protesters arrested, the Indian Government were in Burma, signing a deal to explore for oil and gas. It would appear that the economic interests of India, which needs fuel for its economic development, have overcome its desire to see justice done for the citizens of Burma.
	There is a salient warning for us in all of this. I spoke in a debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly on Burma a couple of weeks ago, and I commented on the role of the Chinese. It was reported on, I did an interview, and afterwards a Chinese friend said to me, "It is very good that you stand and condemn the Chinese Government for their attitude towards Burma. But look at Europe. Look at yourselves and ask whether Britain and Europe, when it is in their economic interests, do not turn a blind eye to some of the human rights abuses in the countries with which you trade?" Indeed, hon. Members have made that point already. Why will the Government not name those companies that trade with Burma, so that citizens of this country can decide whether they want to trade with those companies?
	For a long time, the French, because of their oil interests in Burma, lobbied to have that country admitted to ASEAN and tried to stop sanctions on oil and gas investment. Only recently, it made available more than $400 million-worth of currency through deals to the Burmese regime. I should like the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to say when she replies to the debate whether she believes that EU sanctions have been somewhat softened by the reluctance of France, because of its economic interests, to see strong pressure applied to Burma.
	Mention has been made of the pressure that could be put on China and the ASEAN countries. I believe that pressure is already building on them. The instability in that part of the world benefits neither the ASEAN countries nor China. When there was a strong, apparently immovable regime, perhaps they were happy to support it. Now that the prospect of long-term stability has lessened, it might push China and the ASEAN countries to apply more pressure on Burma.
	Hon. Members have said that the Chinese Government want the Olympics to go smoothly. We should use that as a lever to get the Chinese Government to pay more attention to the position in Burma and put more pressure on the Burmese regime, which they have the ability to influence.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is making a fantastic speech. Given that delaying tactics, the making of only low-level representations by the international community and the removal of the spotlight of publicity from Burma are sources of delight to the regime, does he agree that, in addition to all else that he has said, it is imperative now that the Secretary-General of the United Nations should raise the stakes by making a visit? He wanted the job—is not it a good idea for him to show that he is worth it?

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I want to finish with a plea to the Government to ensure that the stakes are raised and that pressure is applied to Burma.
	From my experience, I know that, whether one is dealing with local terrorism such as we experienced in Northern Ireland or the state-sponsored terrorism on a grander scale that we see in Burma, terrorists always hope that people will cry and shout about the last atrocity and then forget it. The one message that the debate must convey at the end of the parliamentary Session is that, in the next Session and for as long as it takes, the spotlight will be placed on the iniquitous regime and that pressure, including sanctions on individual members of the junta, and the threat that, some day, internationally, justice will catch up with them, will be applied. That is important because if members of the regime believe that they can ride the pressure, they will continue to do as they have been doing. We will get reaction and movement from them only if they know that the democracies of the world are determined to ensure that they behave properly towards their citizens.

Sally Keeble: I will not take up the full allocated time because I understand that others want to speak. However, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate because, some years ago, I visited the border areas, especially one of the refugee camps, where I saw people who had to flee their country and had been in exile ever since. That made a profound impression for three reasons.
	First, I was struck by the length of time that some refugees had been in the camp. I think that the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) probably visited the same camps and had the same experiences. Some refugees are part of the second and even the third generation of people who have been born and brought up in the camps and still live in acute poverty.
	Secondly, I was struck by the extreme isolation that the refugees experienced. Having been forced to flee their country, they were contained in the camp and had little opportunity to travel elsewhere. They therefore did not have much chance of speaking to and meeting people and talking about what had happened to them.
	My third strong impression, which is reflected in the Select Committee's excellent report, was the fact that the refugees felt that they and their cause had been forgotten. We have all obviously been struck by recent events in Burma and the horrendous sights on the television. However, interest in and attention on Burma has waxed and waned and the refugees in the camp did not feel that the world had constantly monitored their plight or was consistently supporting their cause.
	I hope that the debate and the action that is taking place will help to redress the balance. I greatly welcome the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development about the increase in spending and the fact that the UK is now a substantial donor. That is a genuine improvement and goes some way towards dealing with the horrendous poverty that exists in Burma and in the refugee camps. I especially recall visiting the maternity ward at the refugee camp and seeing people place Coca-Cola bottles containing hot water and stoppers around premature babies to try to keep them warm and alive. The increase of aid to try to tackle such poverty and disadvantage is enormously welcome.
	However—there has to be a "however"—although increased aid will help alleviate suffering and hardship, and prolong and improve the quality of life, it will not solve the problem because it is political. Political pressure and a political solution are needed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spelled out some of the steps that the UK Government and the international community have taken and the progress that has been achieved, all of which is welcome.
	The fact that the United Nations has adopted its first statement on Burma by consensus, including China, marks a substantial shift in global politics and sends a clear message to the regime that it, not the refugees, is isolated in world opinion. It also conveys a warning that Burma cannot hope to maintain the status quo and must therefore change its ways.
	However, I do not agree with some hon. Members who spoke earlier because I do not believe that adopting slightly different procedures and expecting the world to accept them will work. Given that Burma has a clearly elected and supported democratic leader, regime change, not some slight improvements to a fundamentally unacceptable regime, are needed.
	It is also important to note that the United Nations Human Rights Council has condemned human rights abuses in Burma, and to ensure that that is known around the world. It is also important that the EU has targeted sanctions on the regime's economic interests that tackle some of the key sectors of the economy, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out. However, as all hon. Members have said, more must be done to increase the pressure to produce a change in the regime. As many right hon. and hon. Members have already suggested tonight, one of the factors that would contribute to that pressure would be a visit from the United Nations Secretary-General.
	Also, we should increase the pressure on China and India to change their ways and to understand the extent of the revulsion that the rest of the international community feels about Burma. I understand that China feels the protests in Burma are an internal affair, although it did go along with the Security Council resolution. Despite doing that, however, China has continued to operate its trading regime, with some £2 billion of its imports coming from Burma.

John Bercow: I am interested in what the hon. Lady is saying about the behaviour of the Government of India. I put it to her that that behaviour is not only immoral but profoundly short-sighted. Would she accept that, if the Government of India continue to pursue their "look east" policy to accentuate their contact and extend their commercial relationships with Burma in a bid to make more money, one consequence will be an increase in the number of refugees coming over the border from Chin state in Burma? A richer Burmese Government will cause more people to flee because they are terrified. If the Indian Government cannot see that, they really need to look more closely at the matter.

Sally Keeble: The hon. Gentleman is completely right. I must point out that I have not actually mentioned India yet, although I was about to do so. I understand that, at the height of the protests, India's oil Minister travelled to Burma to sign a deal to explore for offshore gas. There are two aspects to trading with an unacceptable regime—first, the country concerned incurs the wrath of the world and, secondly, it is short-sighted in its own terms, as we have seen from China's adventures in Zimbabwe, which will not ultimately be in China's interest any more than they will be in the interests of the long-term future of the people of Zimbabwe. It is therefore particularly important that the UK Government use the very good relations that they have with China and India to exert maximum pressure on those Governments to introduce sanctions against the Burmese regime.
	I believe that the Department for International Development still provides assistance to China and to some of the states in India. It is important that any discussions on those development programmes also point out the contradictions involved in those countries supporting the brutal regime in Burma. We also need to consider carefully the kind of boycott that was adopted here to deal with the regime in South Africa. Comparisons with South Africa and Zimbabwe are probably more pertinent in this context than to those with eastern Europe. There is a growing tourism industry in Burma, and there is a question in this country about whether we should have a popular campaign to isolate the regime in Burma similar to the one that was adopted for South Africa.
	Because this is a political issue, it is also important to understand that the UK Government will support the exiles and the refugees from the Burmese Government. If the DFID staff are to be moved from Thailand, it must be made absolutely clear that our embassy there will continue to provide its very important support to the refugees who live along the border between Burma and Thailand. It must be understood that those people will be fully supported and not forgotten.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Buckingham. We in the House have a great responsibility to ensure that the cause of the people of Burma is not allowed to slip off our list of political priorities. We can do them a great service by ensuring that the cause of a free Burma is well represented and argued for here.

Tony Baldry: I do not wish to repeat anything that has already been so excellently said by others in the debate, including by my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (John Bercow), for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), as well as by many on the Labour Benches.
	I want to make two points. The first relates to China. I am the vice-chairman of the all-party group on China, and I do not believe that we as a country, or we as a House, have yet got to grips with how we are going to deal and interact with that country. It has emerged from the debate that China is key to what will happen to most of Asia in the 21st century, and certainly key to what will happen in Burma. It is a complex country. In Shanghai, we see rampant capitalism and more department stores than in any European capital, yet in other parts of the country there is a huge amount of poverty. China is managing to lift many people out of poverty, however, and to a certain extent meeting some of the millennium development goals will largely be a consequence of China having achieved that. So China has that contrast between capitalism and state control. It is also quite difficult to work out who its decision makers are.
	How do we, as a Parliament, interact with China? As I have mentioned, there is an all-party parliamentary group on China but—like every other all-party group except the British American all-party group—it has to busk its relationships. We go out and get sponsorship from business groups and others who might have a constructive interest in China and, under the leadership of the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Ben Chapman), we have now managed to set up a fairly rudimentary programme in which a delegation from the House goes to visit the National People's Congress one year, and the next year—including next year, we hope—a delegation from the congress comes here to have meetings with us. It is a pretty basic kind of dialogue, however, and if we are to have any real influence with legislatures in countries such as China and India as we emerge into the 21st century, Parliament will have to give much more thought to how, to use a Foreign Office expression, we thicken and deepen our relations with them. We can stand up in this House and make fine and noble speeches, but can we be confident that those who should be listening to them are doing so?
	The same applies to colleagues in India. We probably have more contact with them, simply because we have more cause to see Members of the Indian lower House, who come to London more frequently, but it is still pretty hit and miss. Parliament in the 21st century must work out how we can have a much more meaningful relationship with legislatures and decision takers in countries such as India and China, given their increasing importance in the region and in the Security Council.
	The second point that I want to make, while the Secretary of State for International Development is present, is that although I welcome the increased development assistance to Burma, I am now genuinely a bit confused about DFID's priorities. The Department started off by wanting to meet the millennium development goals. I think that we then moved to providing budget support for countries that we thought were reformist, doing well, ticking the boxes and engaging in partnerships such as the New Partnership for Africa's Development. Then countries such as Ethiopia and—perhaps—Uganda did not quite meet the criteria, so we went back to project support rather than money.
	If DFID is to give support to countries and regimes such as Burma, we need to provide some very clear signalling that it is different from offering support and financial assistance to reforming countries. In other words, we need to make it clear that we are giving assistance because Burma is a failed or failing nation and we do not want it to fail any more. It must be made clear that we are supporting only individuals or groups within such countries, making the development assistance of a different character and nature from that given to Governments of whom we approve.
	Everyone participating in a debate such as this is by instinct a humanitarian. Our instinct as a House is to provide support to areas such as Darfur, to refugees in Zimbabwe and to people in difficulties elsewhere. Sometimes we have to ask ourselves what proportion of the DFID budget should be given to such areas and whether we are confident that, in providing support and assistance, we are not making the position worse in the longer run. We may mitigate the worst that is happening in some countries and regimes, but reduce the pressure to reform further.

Douglas Alexander: I would like to make an observation by way of putting a question to the hon. Gentleman. Does he accept my description of the money announced today, which made it clear that both presently and in the future we do not anticipate providing budgetary support or money directly to the Burmese regime? While it is a constant for DFID to be concerned about poverty eradication, the manner in which we provide either immediate humanitarian assistance or development assistance alters and varies according to particular circumstances. Does he agree that it is reasonable, in the circumstances of Burma of all countries, to say that we must conduct ourselves prudently when increasing DFID's budget to make it absolutely certain that none of the money finds it way into the hands of the regime? It is appropriate to increase significantly during the coming spending review period without prejudice to the capacity of the NGOs to which we are giving money to absorb potentially even larger sums in the subsequent spending review period. That was the aim that I was seeking to articulate.

Tony Baldry: I do not demur from the Secretary of State's take on this. I understand his line, but I am trying to make a slightly different point. Clearly, I am not making it very well, so I will try again. This will be read outside this place as the UK Government giving development assistance to Burma. What I am trying to say is that there should be a way of signalling in DFID's annual report by traffic lights or colouring precisely which countries or areas of the world are receiving development assistance because we believe they are performing well, are reformist and worthy of encouragement, and which areas are receiving assistance because they are failed or failing states. Indeed, we may not give any money to some states, but to the NGOs helping particular groups within those states. The DFID annual report should make it patently clear what proportion of moneys is going in those different ways—budget support, project support and so forth. Otherwise, people will start to get confused as to what proportion of DFID money is intended to be long-term development assistance and what proportion is directed towards immediate humanitarian needs and concerns. That is my point to the Secretary of State.

John Bercow: Increasing cross-border humanitarian aid in a way that DFID officials on the ground have consistently resisted would enable us more effectively to reach some of the most vulnerable people who would otherwise get left out. I put it to my hon. Friend that it would also be helpful if there were an explicit unmistakeable commitment to give funds to pro-democracy organisations. With the greatest respect to the Secretary of State, thus far the Department for International Development has committed to neither of those specific requests.

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend raises a fine point, on which I would like to expand in response to the Secretary of State. When DFID decided to move increasingly to budget support, the skills mix of officials in the Department changed. If the Department is giving large sums of money to other countries by way of budget support, it means that not so many people in it are involved in projects and other work on the ground, as in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Douglas Alexander: I will confirm the figures in writing, but my recollection is that there are eight countries to which DFID provides budget support. That contrasts markedly with a very much larger number of countries to which we continue to offer programme assistance. I did not want to allow the moment to pass in the suggestion that the overwhelming preponderance of our development assistance was now offered through budget support. I am keen to take the opportunity that the hon. Gentleman has provided me to reiterate that we do not regard the additional resources offered today to the people of Burma as any reward whatever to the Government of Burma. They will not see this money, which will address the immediate humanitarian needs of people who have been desperately impoverished by the misgovernment of the regime. I think that we have an obligation not to punish the people of Burma twice—once for poverty and again for bad governance.

Tony Baldry: The Secretary of State has misunderstood my point. I am sure that he will write to me; and I will write to him and dig out the quotations of the former Secretary of State for International Development, who regularly came before the Select Committee to say, "Hey, lads, what we are going to do now is provide more and more budget support. This is the way that DFID is going to move to meet the millennium development goals."— [Interruption.] Yes, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham also sat there for four years, going through this process. He saw the direction of travel, too. It stopped being the direction of travel only when various countries to which budget support had been given did not deliver. Ethiopia is one example. It led to the understanding that budget support might be withdrawn if countries did not perform. My point is that if DFID is to fulfil the ambitions for cross-border work with NGOs and others, the skills mix in the Department will have to change. It will need to draw on the abilities of people who are capable of managing projects. That happened under the previous Secretary of State.
	Let me point out to the Secretary of State that it would be helpful to have a separate debate on DFID's present direction of travel, so that we can all understand what is happening. It is not good enough to hear him declare that only a small number of countries are getting budget support, as if that were a justification for what is happening, when we were told only a couple of years ago by his predecessor that the intention was for far more of DFID's funds to be distributed through budget support. We need a clearer understanding of where we are actually going.
	As I said at the outset, I have two main points. The first is that we need to work out much better how to establish our complicated relations with China; we need to work much harder in that respect. Secondly, I do not wish to test the Secretary of State's patience, but I believe that we need to gain a much better understanding of DFID's direction of travel. It would be helpful to have a separate debate on that matter on another occasion.

Andrew Mitchell: I start by conveying the shadow Foreign Secretary's apologies. He had an unbreakable commitment at 8 o'clock tonight from which he had hoped to return for the winding-up speeches, but he will not now be able to do so.
	We have had a fascinating debate, in which deep concern has been expressed on both sides of the House about the situation in Burma. The competition is stiff, as has been said, but Burma remains without doubt one of the most unpleasant and despised regimes in the world. It is a subject that has secured the House's attention on numerous occasions, but it is some time since we had a debate in this Chamber. I am very pleased that we are debating the subject here tonight.
	I first spoke on the subject of Burma in this Chamber at 3 o'clock in the morning on 24 June 1991, nearly 17 years ago. It is deeply depressing how little has changed since that time—

Meg Munn: Your constituency has changed.

Andrew Mitchell: Indeed, but the situation in Burma has not.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, debates such as this one matter outside the House. He spoke with great passion, as did others, about the importance of holding these debates. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) pointed out that the subject is of interest across all generations. I have visited sixth forms, as other Members will have done, and I know how right he is, because they care passionately about Burma and about dysfunctional regimes around the world which are repressing their citizens.
	Although there is deep gloom in the House about the situation in Burma, there are also many heroes. One thinks of the almost impossible bravery of the monks and nuns whom we saw on our televisions in scenes that we had hoped had been dispatched to the last century. Their bravery was described with his customary eloquence by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). While we salute their bravery, we should also mention the bravery of many others who are involved in trying to bring these terrible circumstances to a conclusion. I think in particular of Mark Canning, the excellent British ambassador who is doing such a good job in Burma, and Charles Petrie, the United Nations humanitarian and resident co-ordinator, who is making a difference in extremely difficult circumstances. Those two deeply impressive individuals are serving their country and the international community at this critical time for Burma. My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary mentioned Zoya Phan, and my hon. Friend mentioned Ben Rogers, who does such good and dedicated work in the area with Christian Solidarity Worldwide.
	The concerns expressed are many. They fall into three different but interlinked categories. The first relates to the extraordinary and acute levels of poverty that exist in Burma. It is a country of immense economic potential, with no external enemies, which has seen itself descend yet further into the mire of poverty while surrounding Asian countries have lifted hundreds of millions of their citizens out of poverty. In a report circulated today, the Save the Children Fund calculates that children in Burma face the worst poverty in Asia. We know that 50 per cent. of its children lack any form of primary education. Various statistics have been given on health spending in Burma, but it is a fraction of what is spent in surrounding countries, and 16 times less than what is spent in Thailand. If hon. Members cast their minds back to the television pictures of protesters in Burma, they will recall that the people standing behind the monks were not student activists but middle-aged women who traditionally carry the burdens of families coping in many societies. They could no longer provide for their families, many of which are now living in circumstances of near starvation or starvation in Burma.
	Many hon. Members spoke about people who are classified as internally displaced. For most of us, that means refugees in the country itself. I cannot find the words to convey the sense of fury and outrage that I felt when I visited Ei Tu Hta camp and which we should all feel about the situation in the camps on the border. They should be safe havens. Often when people seek refuge in refugee camps, they do so in somewhere that is at least temporarily safe, but the camps on the border are not safe. The Burmese army is terrifyingly close, and the squalor in the camps—again, so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and others who speak with authority having seen what is happening there—is truly horrific.
	In that context, I am surprised and rather disappointed that the Government have not accepted in full the recommendations of the Select Committee on International Development's excellent report. Indeed, they have rejected the most important ones. The Committee called for the current aid budget for Burma of £8.8 million to be quadrupled by 2013. Conservative Members have been calling for that since at least May 2006. The Committee concluded:
	"This crisis-stricken country, which suffers from immense poverty and pernicious human rights abuses, received the lowest aid of all Least Developed Countries. We believe that this level of assistance is unacceptable...we believe that UK aid to Burma should be scaled up substantially".
	We agree completely with the Committee's recommendation. If we are in government after the next election, we will implement that proposal in full and immediately.
	Some hon. Members pointed to the level of aid in surrounding countries. I think that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) asked what it said about the priorities for British aid. It is interesting to note that compared with that £8.8 million, which was recently increased, Cambodia is receiving £12 million; Vietnam, a country that is storming out of poverty, is receiving £52 million from the British taxpayer; and China, which had a trade surplus last month of $24 billion, is receiving £40 million this year and, I think, next year. We do not think that that set of priorities is correct. We very much hope that the Secretary of State will look at them again to see what further assistance can be given to the people who are living in desperate conditions in the camps and to the other programmes that are being mounted, some of them by the British embassy in Burma.

John Bercow: I hugely welcome my hon. Friend's clear and explicit commitment to increase support. For the avoidance of doubt, may I tell him that there is no issue of capacity constraint? The Select Committee looked at the issues, took evidence, studied the subject in detail and posed the relevant questions. As far as cross-border aid is concerned and the funding of democracy organisations to boot, they explained to us just what they could do if we gave them additional support. There is no doubt or mystique about that whatever.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Select Committee has produced an excellent report, compelling in its arguments for the reasons my hon. Friend makes clear. I urge the Secretary of State to look again at what more he can do to help.

Daniel Kawczynski: Russia, a rapidly growing country with huge oil reserves, has also received aid from the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State must look again at how international aid is spent so that countries such as Burma receive their fair share?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
	That brings me to Aung San Suu Kyi and other opposition leaders, particularly from the students of '88. The junta is incredibly fortunate to be dealing with the leadership of the quality of Aung San Suu Kyi, whom Professor Gambardi found to be focused and committed. He said that she understood not only the political but the economic task ahead in Burma. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley talked about the students of '88 and I would like to mention Min Ko Naing, one of its leaders, who, along with others, has always opposed any form of violence. The junta is fortunate because these are clear leaders with a good vision of leadership who understand that one needs to look to the future and not to the past. They are not interested in revenge and retribution and they understand that it will be a complicated battle in Burma to get the military into its rightful position and the politicians into theirs. They understand that democracy will take time but that there has to be a road map to reach it—not the bogus one beloved of the junta, which will take something like 100 years to complete, but a proper road map that puts the military into its correct place. If one looks at the difficulties with the Darfur negotiations in Libya, where it is so difficult to get a leadership that can speak for the opposition, one sees that the junta in Burma is indeed fortunate.
	The junta appointed Major-General Aung Kyi as the interlocutor with Aung San Suu Kyi. He is rated for his abilities and has clear influence within the regime, which means, we hope, that he will be able to open up the negotiations. As the Secretary of State has said, if these negotiations can take place and a road map is agreed—if the regime is serious—a huge range of things that the international community can do in those circumstances becomes a possibility.

Brooks Newmark: My hon. Friend keeps focusing on the positive things that one can do with negotiation and providing extra aid, but does he agree that it is absolutely crucial that we use the international banking system to continue to put the financial squeeze on a regime that relies on dollars and euros to trade in oil, gas and gems?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right and I will come to that point. It is clear that international pressure has had some beneficial effect. In particular, China has been immensely helpful, engaged both in New York and in Burma, specifically in respect of Professor Gambari's visit. China is clearly deeply dismayed by the instability across its border in a country with 2.5 million Chinese nationals. Like others, I have been to see the Chinese ambassador to Britain, and the tactic of the Government and others of encouraging the Chinese to use their immense influence appears to be paying some dividends. We should welcome that.
	Along with others in the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks), I am surprised that India, the largest democracy in the world, has not felt it right to do more than it has done so far. I hope that the Foreign Office and the Secretary of State will do all they can to encourage the Indian Government to play a much greater role.
	The role of Thailand has been mentioned. It is a key funder of the regime, not least through the purchase of gas from the Yadana and Yetagun gas fields, which is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the regime, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) made clear. Thailand, too, has a role and is escaping international scrutiny that should be directed towards it.
	The UN can do more. As has been said by my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary, the hon. Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for Glasgow, East (Mr. Marshall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, we think that the Secretary-General should make it clear that this matter is of such importance that he, too, will go there in the near future. We urge the Government to underline that point. We need a resolution requiring meaningful talks with the democracy movement and the sort of road map that I mentioned.
	As numerous hon. Members have said tonight, we need a comprehensive and mandatory arms embargo. China, India, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine and ASEAN countries are suppliers of arms to this illegitimate regime and they should cease being so.
	We greatly welcome the EU travel ban against Government Ministers and cronies that has been in place for some time, and the smart sanctions that are being devised and deployed against the junta leaders and their assets. That is an important development of sanctions policy, which we strongly support. We welcome the extension of sanctions to timber, logging, precious metals and gems. They are small areas of the economy from which the regime gains disproportionate benefit. It is right to target those areas with sanctions. They do work, as has been pointed out. Air Bagan, the internal airline—owned and run by the regime's number one crony, Tay Za—has had to suspend its operations to Singapore because its bank accounts have been closed down. The reason for that is that all banks have such strong links to the United States that the danger to their image and business of their continuing such banking arrangements is too great. That is an example of the international community working effectively to bring about sanctions that really do hit the regime.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend mentioned image, which is very important. Does that not underline the merit—if not the imperative—of naming and shaming companies that trade with Burma, because if they are publicly exposed they will have to calculate whether the ill-gotten gains are worth the damage from other quarters? They might judge that it is simply not worth it.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend yet again makes an extremely good point; it is relevant to the decisions made by the banking community that I have just described.
	My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) was the only Member to raise tonight the interesting question of the International Criminal Court. In his speech to the UN General Assembly of 25 September, the Secretary-General said that
	"the age of impunity is dead."
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the shadow Foreign Secretary, has made the same point. In response to the crisis in Burma, the Prime Minister said at the Labour party conference that
	"the age of impunity in neglecting and over-riding human rights is over".
	The Foreign Secretary said that the regime would be "held to account". The EU has called
	"for a thorough and impartial investigation of the deaths of demonstrators as well as other serious and continuous violations of human rights, and for those liable to be held to account."
	In the light of those statements and the dreadful catalogue of gross violations of human rights amounting to crimes against humanity and war crimes in Burma, are the Government considering working with other Governments to request the UN—through the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the special rapporteur, or a commission of inquiry or other mechanisms—to carry out a thorough, complete and independent investigation into alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes, with a view to bringing a case to the UN Security Council for referral to the ICC? If so, what resources will the Government, through either the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the Department for International Development, commit to enable such an investigation to be conducted properly? Does the Minister accept that it is essential that such an investigation is not limited to the events of recent weeks, but that it covers the full scale of human rights violations in all parts of Burma over many years?
	All of us underestimate the power of the ICC in such circumstances—Members will remember the discussions that took place in New York last year with President Bashir of Sudan, which showed of what deep concern the workings of the ICC were to him and his regime. That enables us to make it clear—as the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire and my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham and for Buckingham have made clear in the debate—that we will hold to account the individual soldiers who take part in brutality and repression in Burma today. Just as the regime is able to use photographs to identify the protesters, so the international community is able to identify the individual soldiers in the regime and make them accountable for their actions. We need to be clear that that is what the international community intends to do.
	It is easy to be pessimistic about what has gone on in Burma and the likely course of future events, but I submit to the House that the events over recent weeks are different from those that took place in 1988. In 1988, it was a long time before we knew that more than 3,000 people had been massacred by this regime, but now, partly because of the internet, we are able to know what is going on in real time. Despite the efforts of the authorities in Rangoon, they have been unable to shut down the internet and we know what is happening.
	This regime will not be able to put the cork back into the bottle. Protest might not come back on the streets in quite the same way in the next few weeks, but the junta has done huge damage to its power structure by attacking Buddhism. So many monks have been locked up and beaten that as, inevitably, they are released and trickle back into their community, there will be fury at how they have been treated. Indeed, over the past weekend, graffiti has been appearing on the walls in Rangoon saying "Than Shwe killer". That is an example of the change that is taking place in Burmese society.
	Let the whole international community determine that this time things in Burma will be different. I want to end with a quote from the end of a good report just published by the Thailand Burma Border Consortium:
	"The military regime has committed crimes against humanity and systematic human rights violations for far too long, and the coping strategies of rural villagers are almost exhausted. A window of opportunity exists for change in Burma, an end to the primary causes of forced migration, and a new era of peace and justice. Burma's civil society has created this momentum, but the responsibility now shifts to the international community to ensure an end to the regime's impunity."

Meg Munn: This has been an excellent and important debate. We have rightly heard a lot of anger and passion expressed, as well as concerns from both sides of the House and hon. Members from all parties pressing for change. Many powerful speeches have described the situation, none more so than those of the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks).
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) related this issue to what is happening at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and that is enormously important, because parliamentarians across the world should be talking about this. Last week, I visited Singapore's Parliament and I was reassured to hear its parliamentarians asking their Foreign Minister many questions about the situation in Burma. I am also told by the Malaysian Foreign Minister, whom I met in the UK last week, that the same thing is happening in the Malaysian Parliament.
	An instructive exchange took place last week at the UN General Assembly Third Committee. The special rapporteur on human rights in Burma, Sergio Pinheiro, gave an initial briefing on the recent crackdown and his assessment made for grim listening. In response, the Burmese delegation said that the country had returned to "normalcy." The truth, of course, is anything but that. Thousands remain detained in appalling conditions; despite the relaxation of the curfew, night-time arrests continue; and the show trials have begun.
	This debate has been useful in underlining how strongly this House, and indeed this country as a whole, feels about the ongoing situation. It has sent a clear signal to the Burmese regime and the Burmese people that we will not forget and we will not turn away.
	I pay tribute to the very many public campaigns, both here and abroad, that are keeping Burma high on the international agenda. A number of hon. Members have referred to them. The plight of the Burmese people has united people within the Government and across UK-based and global non-governmental organisations in an unprecedented way. It is vital that we keep up the momentum.
	The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) rightly recognised the work done by our ambassador and his staff in Rangoon, and I, too, pay tribute to the enormously important role that they are playing. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have a long and deep knowledge of Burma and the Burmese people. I have therefore not been at all surprised at the quality of analysis that we have heard tonight, and I will seek to respond to as many of the points that have been made as possible.
	In response to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), I shall outline the next steps that we would envisage in a reconciliation process in Burma. The regime needs to establish a genuine process of national reconciliation, including maintaining regular contacts with Aung Sang Suu Kyi and her state-appointed interlocutor; releasing from custody key opposition figures, so that Aung San Suu Kyi can consult them; and fully opening the door to the UN Secretary-General's special envoy, Ibrahim Gambari, and allowing him to stay in the country as long as he needs to do so and, if he wants to, to establish a permanent presence there.
	Hon. Members were right to identify that, although the vast majority of Burmese people are denied the most basic human rights, it is the ethnic groups, particularly those in the conflict and border areas, who suffer worst of all. The reports almost beggar belief: villages destroyed, women systematically raped, prisoners tortured, children forced into the army and civilians used as human minesweepers.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) said, any political process will need fully to involve those ethnic groups, which make up nearly a third of Burma's population. Their role will be as central to reconciliation as that of the pro-democracy civil opposition. They are unlikely to embrace any political agreement that does not incorporate the demands broadly shared across all 120 separate ethnic groups: the protection of cultural identity, the equitable control of natural resources and a degree of political autonomy at state level. Ensuring that the interests of ethnic minorities are properly engaged will be vital if stability is to be maintained in a democratic Burma. I had the opportunity to meet some Karen refugees in Sheffield on Friday when I was in my constituency, and I heard directly from them how they feel that it is important that their situation is recognised in any future reconciliation.
	All of us, including regional neighbours, have genuine and understandable concerns about the future stability of Burma. We must acknowledge those concerns, and both the UN and the parties will need to take them into account in designing a genuinely inclusive political process. But at the same time, it becomes increasingly obvious that the status quo is unsustainable, so it should be ever more apparent that regional stability and prosperity is best served by a managed process of political reform in Burma. As Aung San Suu Kyi has acknowledged, the Burmese military will have an important, continuing role to play in a democratic Burma, given the likely challenges to internal security and nation building that will remain, but the military dictatorship must end.
	Many hon. Members have, not surprisingly, referred to the roles of China and India—Burma's large neighbours—and the ASEAN countries. The hon. Member for Buckingham referred to the need for those concerns to be raised with counterparts at the highest level, and I should like to reassure him that that has been done. The Prime Minister has had an extensive personal involvement, talking to his counterparts in China and Indian. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to his counterparts. My noble Friend Lord Malloch-Brown has been to India and has spoken to his counterparts, and I have spoken to delegations from China, India, including a Minister, and Thailand, as well as from many ASEAN nations in the past week or two.
	We believe that it is imperative that all countries in the region should turn the strong rhetoric, which is welcome, into concerted action. They should speak out against the regime, not offer the generals financial or other support and end arms sales and military co-operation. It is clear that, for ASEAN in particular, to turn a blind eye to such a repressive Government in its midst and in the year of its 40th anniversary would jeopardise the whole process of democratisation and the development of the region and damage its credibility.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks asked what Ministers sought to achieve by their visits to the region and to China and India. We want to continue to support the positive steps taken by Governments in the region and to point out that the UK considers the matter of the utmost importance. It will remain high on our agenda. Things must change; the Burmese regime must be brought to understand that it cannot continue as it has done. There must be a process of reconciliation and a move to a more democratic situation in Burma, and that needs to start now. We welcome the positive steps that have been taken and the positive statements that have been made, but they are not the end of the matter. More needs to happen and things need to move forward.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked whether any UN computers with information about democracy campaigners had been seized. We have received no complaints or reports from the UN about the seizure of equipment by the Burmese authorities, but we would strongly deplore any such action.
	Many questions were asked about aid and trade. I shall first respond to issues raised about the proposed financial support that we would put in place should the Burmese regime take the steps towards the reform process we want. I assure Members that the UK and the US share the same objectives on Burma—to bring about peaceful political change, the restoration of democracy, national reconciliation and full respect for human rights. The Prime Minister's suggestion arose from his discussions with other leaders about the need for a comprehensive approach to the crisis, balancing targeted pressure on the regime with a plan for possible economic recovery conditional on political progress.
	We are giving the regime a stark choice. There can be sanctions and increased sanctions or the regime can take steps towards reform, which the international community might support with financial proposals. That is an appropriate approach. It is right that the regime understands that, as well as applying sanctions, we want to hold out an offer of progress should it take the steps that we all want to see.
	Members spoke at great length about the aid provided by the Department for International Development. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the priorities in his speech and responded to interventions about the proposals. Members should bear in mind that, in 2002, the programme was £2 million and that over the past five years the amount has increased to £9 million, making the UK the third-largest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development donor. My right hon. Friend set out the expected increase over the next comprehensive spending review period. There will be a further CSR before 2013 and the International Development Committee has set out what it wants to see in that period. The current commitment does not extend to the end of the period.

John Bercow: Again and again, I go back to the issue of cross-border aid, support for democracy organisations and the need for explicit commitments in respect of both. This has been a very good debate, but as someone who has long admired, and continues to admire, both the erudition and intellect of the Secretary of State for International Development, may I point out that he should not underestimate the suspicion among some of the border aid groups and democracy organisations towards officials on the ground in Rangoon whom they regard as indifferent at best and hostile at worst? We need explicit commitments.

Meg Munn: I am informed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development admires the hon. Gentleman's erudition and intellect, too, and is happy to meet him to explore the issue further. Obviously, the whole House is concerned about the issue, and I am sure that we want productive and friendly discussions.

Daniel Kawczynski: The Minister says, in reply to our questions, that the budget has gone up from £2 million to £9 million, and will go up to £18 million by 2010 but, with all respect, that does not answer the question that many of us have put: why does Burma receive so little compared to comparable African countries?

Meg Munn: If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself, I was just coming to that.

Andrew Mitchell: I return to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). At the proposed meeting, which will clearly be governed by feelings of immense affection on both sides, the Secretary of State will need to explain why the case that the Select Committee made in its excellent report is defective and why he will not accept it.

Meg Munn: I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunities for the Secretary of State to explore those issues in the meeting, and to discuss the matter with the Select Committee, as he rightly should. The environment in Burma is complex and risky, and there are significant limitations on the ability of potential partners to absorb funds. We work around central Government, so mechanisms for getting funds to schools and clinics are labour-intensive. We must carefully manage the risk that the regime will get undeserved benefits from our programme. Rigorous monitoring is also crucial. It is essential that we can show that our funds have an impact, that we maintain a strong understanding of the political context in which our projects work, and that we ensure rigorous transparency, so that communities understand where support is coming from. We have worked hard to build a strong relationship with opposition groups inside the country, and it is important that we retain their trust through our careful approach to the programme.
	The increase that was announced is at a level at which we can be confident that funds can continue to be used and monitored effectively. The expansion of the team based in Rangoon from three to 10 members of staff will give us greater capacity to manage the programme and the risk. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is a listening Secretary of State—we have just been exploring that point—so I am sure that he will seek to respond more fully in a subsequent meeting.
	Hon. Members raised the subject of UN action through sanctions, and the question of whether there should be a UN arms embargo. As hon. Members will be aware, an EU arms embargo is already in place. We judge that, at present, there is insufficient support on the Security Council for a UN ban, but we have been discussing the possibility with partners in New York.
	Hon. Members also wanted to know about the position of the EU. I am grateful for their welcome for the steps taken so far and for the response from across the EU to the proposals that the UK wanted to introduce. The additional measures agreed on 15 October are welcome. The EU agreed, with strong UK encouragement, to consider additional measures if there was insufficient political process and engagement with the United Nations. Together with our partners, we will discuss when and how to draw up and implement such measures, including a ban on new investment. I have to tell hon. Members that that is a complex process.
	As I will come on to say, we are starting to see some movement from the regime in Burma. We want that to continue, and ensuring the exact right amount of pressure and encouragement will be crucial to the process. I feel strongly that we have to manage the process carefully; we have to keep in close contact with people in the region, because as the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said, we must not miss the current opportunity. It is nearly 20 years since the demonstrations in 1988, and there has not been an opportunity like the present one to get the international community to move forward. Getting the process right, applying the right amount of pressure, getting the right people involved at the right time, sanctions and the threat of sanctions are enormously important. When I spoke to our ambassador in Rangoon this afternoon, he said that the threat of sanctions is sometimes sufficient to achieve movement, so we should not react too quickly, as we are beginning to achieve progress.

Nigel Evans: The Minister said that sanctions can be effective, and sanctions exercised on consumers' behalf against companies that invest in Burma can be highly effective. If British people knew which British companies engaged in trade or investment that supported that regime, they could bring sanctions against those companies. Why can we not be told which companies are involved?

Meg Munn: The hon. Gentleman anticipates a matter that I shall come to shortly.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose—

Meg Munn: If the hon. Gentleman can wait, I should like to respond to the issue of overseas territories investment raised by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter). May I clarify the fact that the EU common position on Burma includes a ban on investment or the provision of financial services to certain Burmese state-owned enterprises and to certain sectors? That ban is in force in the UK and in British overseas territories. It is the responsibility of companies incorporated or constituted in British overseas territories to comply with the law. We have seen no evidence that investments covered by the EU common position have been routed through any of the overseas territories. The funds themselves would, in all likelihood, be held in bank accounts outside Bermuda or the British Virgin Islands, as relatively few Bermudan or British Virgin Islands-registered companies hold accounts in the territory.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Lady has just answered the point I was going to make, so I am grateful to her.

Meg Munn: Hon. Members may come to learn that if they wait a moment, I may indeed answer all the points that they have made.

Julian Lewis: With luck, the Minister will tell me that I am anticipating a point that she is about to make. So far, she has not addressed the question of whether the Government accept that crimes against humanity have been committed, and whether they intend to do anything to follow up the suggestion from the Opposition that the International Criminal Court should be involved.

Meg Munn: If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself, I will come to that. First, however, I want to deal with all the issues raised about aid and trade.
	The value of imports from Burma to the UK halved between 2004 and 2005. As the hon. Member for Cheadle said, in the six months to July 2007, UK imports from Burma were worth £17.1 million and exports totalled £2 million. Commercial confidentiality has been cited as a concern for the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Major exports from Burma include marine and agricultural products. As we discussed in relation to EU economic sanctions, we must be careful not to introduce measures that target ordinary producers in Burma. I can reassure hon. Members that the EU common position has resulted in an asset freeze on 380 regime leaders and members of their families. Those assets have already been frozen. UK investment in Burma is negligible, and the figures from the Office for National Statistics on active UK investment show that it is very low. Indeed, the ONS does not have any returns suggesting any UK direct investment as at the end of 2005.

Sally Keeble: On commercial confidentiality, all the companies that were involved in South Africa under apartheid were named, and all the reports submitted under EU regulations were open to public scrutiny. Plenty of information was provided that enabled people to boycott South African agricultural produce. There was no perceptibly adverse effect on the wider community, but there was a profound impact on the regime.

Meg Munn: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, and, as I have said, our concern remains that we should have sanctions that target the regime without impacting on ordinary people. The amount in relation to the UK remains small. We are unaware of any major UK-based company operating in Burma. Our ambassador, in his 15 months at post, has not received a single statement of interest from a UK company about investing in Burma, and has come across no British firm operating there. This Government were instrumental in persuading the last two major UK investors, BAT and Premier Oil, to withdraw from Burma, and we have consistently discouraged UK investment.

Daniel Kawczynski: Is the Minister confirming to the House that if any British company approached our ambassador in Burma asking for help with trade with Burma, our ambassador would decline?

Meg Munn: I can confirm that we do not seek to give support to anybody who wishes to invest in Burma.

Mike Gapes: Can the Minister confirm that the Government are not encouraging British tourists to go to Burma, and that those companies in Britain who are still promoting tourism are doing so in a way that is not in the interests of the people of Burma?

Meg Munn: My hon. Friend raises another issue in relation to our contact with Burma. I know that there is considerable debate among a range of people as to whether it is appropriate to travel to Burma because that increases the contact with people and therefore reduces isolation and allows people to see what is going on, or whether it supports the regime. The Government do not support any tourism to Burma. We have made clear statements that are in line with the European position in terms of our contacts with the regime, and that is as far as I want to go in my answer on that.
	The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) asked about the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. Undoubtedly, large-scale human rights abuses are taking place in Burma. However, it is not yet clear whether those violations constitute genocide or crimes against humanity as understood by international law. There is therefore no current case before the ICJ, but we are in close contact with our international partners and the UN on this, and we will keep it under review.
	There are some signs that the regime is beginning to feel the cumulative weight of international pressure. We saw fierce resistance to the Security Council statement and heard sharp complaints about increased international sanctions from the regime. As the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has already said, there have been problems with the internal airline, and I believe with one other airline, in terms of their ability to continue operating due to insurance and banking support. I am told that there is every indication that companies and businesses within Burma are themselves very concerned about the situation with regard to existing and threatened sanctions.
	We know that Aung San Suu Kyi—as everybody has said, an incredibly brave and courageous woman—has been shown on state television for the first time in years, and the first meeting between Aung Kyi and Aung San Suu Kyi was a welcome, albeit partial and unproven, first step, as indeed was last week's announcement that the Burmese authorities would grant another visa to Professor Gambari and, for the first time, a visa to Professor Sergio Pinheiro.
	More generally, we believe that in such a devoutly Buddhist society, the brutal and humiliating treatment of the monks and the desecration of religious sites has caused deep trauma across Burmese society, including within parts of the Government and military.
	Faced with still greater international isolation, even those connected to the regime must realise that their own future, and that of their children, is ill-served by a group of ageing generals who are driving the country relentlessly into the ground. While much of south-east Asia advances into the digital age, Burma is slipping back into the dark ages. However, there is equally no doubt that if there is any relaxation in the pressure that we are exerting on the Burmese regime, it will take the opportunity to consolidate its hold.
	If we do not see signs of genuine engagement in a political process, the UN Security Council will need to consider what further measures it must take. We have already begun discussions with our partners about what those might be, including the possibility of a UN arms embargo. There will be a hard balance to strike between maintaining consensus and agreeing the toughest action possible. At the same time, the EU is drawing up a list of further sanctions it could adopt against the Burmese regime, up to and including a ban on new investment should the regime fail to engage constructively with the UN.

John Bercow: Before the Minister sits down, will she do two things? First, will she commit to press for an EU-wide ban on the provision of insurance cover? Secondly, in view of the historical significance of securing a debate on the Floor of the House, will she take this opportunity to pay tribute to Yvette Mahon, Mark Farmaner, Anna Roberts and Zoya Phan—the latter may one day be a leader of Burma—because they and their colleagues at the Burma Campaign have worked tirelessly for years to achieve even the prominence that has now been secured for the issue?

Meg Munn: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will talk to our EU partners about all possible appropriate sanctions that will have an effect on the regime, and we will certainly consider the matter that he has raised. I am happy to pay tribute to the people he mentioned. The role of those in the NGO sector, those in society and those in the House in continuing to keep the issue high on the agenda and in the public mind cannot be underestimated. It is only continuing to keep up the pressure that will give us any hope of changing a difficult and entrenched situation.
	Today, the House has sent out a clear signal. We are watching and waiting. We will not forget the people of Burma, and the world will judge the regime by its actions.

Alison Seabeck: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	 Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Taxes

That the draft Tax Avoidance Schemes (Penalty) Regulations 2007, which were laid before this House on 24th July, be approved .—[Alison Seabeck.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure

That the Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure (HC 998), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament .—[Alison Seabeck.]
	 Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Hit and Run Accidents

Jeff Ennis: I want to present a petition on behalf of my constituent Mrs. Catherine McDermott and more than 5,000 residents from my constituency and throughout South Yorkshire. The petition protests at the lenient sentencing policy for drivers involved in fatal hit and run accidents. Mrs. McDermott's grandson, Kyle, was killed in a hit and run accident in Mexborough last year.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons
	The petition of Mrs. Catherine McDermott and residents of S. Yorks.
	Declares that 7 year old Kyle McDermott was killed by a hit and run driver on 11/09/06. The driver had 2 previous convictions for drink driving but was sentenced to just 5 months in prison.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Justice to urgently review the current sentencing policy for this type of offence with a view to introducing much stiffer penalties.
	And the petitioners remain.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Abortion Act 1967

Peter Bone: Some 7.75 million babies have been killed in this country since the introduction of the Abortion Act 1967. I do not believe that that was the intention of the original legislators. I therefore strongly support the petitioners and the petition.
	The petition states:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assemble.
	The humble petition of Linda White and other residents of Wellingborough including the Parish of Our Lady of Our Sacred Heart Wellingborough sheweth
	That they bear witness to the fortieth anniversary of the passing of the Abortion Act 1967 and appeal to Her Majesty's government, in its forthcoming review of the act, to seek ways of providing alternative support for families who choose to abort their unborn babies and to hasten the day when this terrible act is removed from the statute book.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Health to introduce a bill to repeal the Abortion Act 1967.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	 To lie upon the Table.

COMMUNITY RADIO

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Alison Seabeck.]

Ian Lucas: It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to discuss a subject close to my heart and those of many campaigners across the United Kingdom. I am sure that it is also close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Minister, who I am delighted is here to respond.
	I am an enthusiast for community radio because it has a vital role to play in communities across the UK. It will have a particularly vital role in my own community of Wrexham, which you know particularly well, Madam Deputy Speaker, and in the community of north-east Wales; community radio is coming to north-east Wales in spring next year, when Calon FM, which has secured a community radio licence, will begin to broadcast.
	Community radio is one of the Government's great success stories. It was introduced by the Communications Act 2003 and is now governed by the Community Radio Order 2004. Some 148 licences have been awarded under the community radio legislation and at present 85 new stations are broadcasting to provide services to their local communities. I believe that one, Sheffield Live, is beginning to broadcast today. I wish it all the best; I am sure that it will contribute hugely to its community.
	I have always been a strong believer in local broadcasting. I well remember listening to Radio Newcastle as I was growing up on Tyneside. It contributed greatly to its local community. Local radio, particularly from the BBC, has a strong reputation for impartiality and quality of service. If it has a failure, it is that it does not extend far enough. Although, historically, BBC and commercial radio stations have provided valuable services in many communities across the United Kingdom, many areas were not covered by local radio. That was a major failing, which the 2003 Act sought to address.
	The gap in provision can mean that a community does not communicate sufficiently with itself. We have seen the success of community radio in creating a forum for listeners, initiating discussion and debate, putting its finger on the pulse of local issues and creating great momentum in local campaigns. Community and local radio are particularly well placed to play such roles.
	We are seeing a fracturing of communities across the UK; members of our communities often do not feel able to attend community meetings as they did in the past. Community radio can fill the gap that has begun to develop in certain areas. For example, gaps in local media are also beginning to develop in the commercial sphere. Commercial radio is becoming increasingly less local and the amount of time that a commercial radio station now spends on local broadcasting is shrinking. Although commercial radio still plays an important role, much more of its broadcasting output is nationally based and moving away from dedicated local provision. The disadvantage of that is that the type of localised contact that can be made through community radio is also shrinking.
	Ironically, this is happening at the same time as a huge development of talent in the creative media sector. I speak with particular knowledge of my own community in Wrexham, where the technical advances that have been made mean that it is now much more possible for high-quality media work to be created. In colleges across the UK, high-quality broadcasting material is being produced on a large scale. The frustration for the people who are producing that work is that there is insufficient air time available for the public to receive that information into their homes. For example, Yale college, a further education college in my constituency, provides an excellent service to the local community and has recently worked with the BBC to produce a series of digital stories that are being broadcast mainly across the internet.
	I am a great believer in oral history. One of the things that motivated me into getting involved in politics was seeing programmes of oral history on television. I particularly remember a series called "The 20th Century Remembered", with Fenner Brockway and Lord Boothby talking about their experiences. Local areas in the UK have very powerful stories to be told by local people. For example, I heard a digital story about Erlas hall in Wrexham, where the 90-year-old daughter of the last gardener at that hall, whose work ended in the first world war, talked about how she had known the garden in the past and how the community in Wrexham had been involved in it. That had previously been forgotten—a local history story had disappeared. As a result of her input, the garden is being recreated. I am anxious that that type of oral history can be communicated locally to local communities.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend makes an important point about oral history. One of the extraordinary differences between an online presence and a broadcast presence for such a story is that when listening to a broadcast network, radio station, channel or whatever, one comes across things that one had not originally chosen to hear. That serendipity is half its significance, because it can challenge one's existing prejudices. Does he worry, as I do, that the BBC's strategy in terms of localising its news provision is always based on an online presence rather than on community radio, where that serendipity can be made possible for people?

Ian Lucas: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's observation. I worry, in particular, that many of the people who would be most interested in a story such as that about the garden at Erlas hall are from the older generation who are comfortable with radio, particularly local radio, but do not feel able to access the internet. I also take his point about the accidental discovery of programmes. I experience that all the time when I listen to the radio, in the car or whatever, and it can feel positive to receive information and knowledge that one does not expect. One can broaden one's horizons enormously by receiving information in that way.
	I have cited one example of a local piece of knowledge being communicated locally. That is happening, but it needs to happen on a broader basis. Another matter on which community radio can have a great impact is local music. The Welsh Music Foundation has set up a novel project in Wrexham, which is a music studio created with the assistance of the local authority. Young people in the Wrexham community use it as a rehearsal room at a ludicrously cheap rate. Rehearsal time is being used up at the moment and I hope that it will continue to be used with great enthusiasm.
	Really important and impressive bands are beginning to work and develop through those facilities. They are beginning to make an impact through the internet by communicating with other parts of the music sector. However, again, access to local radio, or radio provision of any type, is not immediately available. A community radio station with a varied output and an imaginative approach could facilitate access to the airwaves for bands that create good, positive music, which would increase the involvement of young people in their local community.
	The benefits of local radio are social, creative and commercial. Local radio performs a valuable role as a forum for the exchange of information. Traditionally, that has been one of local radio's great strengths, but there is reluctance on the part of some of our established institutions to buy into the fact that community radio can contribute enormously to communication in a community. For example, local authorities are much too slow to take advantage of community radio, now and in the past. We have to examine the way in which we communicate with the people that we represent, and local authorities need to do that, too. Local authorities often produce leaflets that are unimaginative, propagandist and not particularly stimulating, and that is often the means of communication between local authorities and the people that they represent. Those authorities could benefit from investment in local community radio. If they want a public response to the question whether fortnightly bin collections are working, community radio would be a good way of getting it. That would be a good investment of public money—better, perhaps, than producing reams of local magazines that nobody reads.
	We need to explore far more than we have before the creativity that community radio can produce. The imaginative aspect of good radio broadcasting can be extremely impressive because it communicates profoundly with listeners and is very valued, but there is a limited forum for such imaginative, creative radio output. I would like community radio to take a much more imaginative approach. It should focus on the local, but do it imaginatively. The quality of broadcasting generally, propped up by the genuine talent in the creative industry in our communities, could hugely benefit the people whom we represent.
	There is a problem with funding community radio. Although the Government have done a great job in promoting community radio, the community radio fund could benefit from some expansion. Although I would dearly love the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to commit to that this evening, I expect that that is a forlorn hope. However, community radio needs more money. I have suggested that local authorities could be a source of that funding because they should use the new opportunities presented by that medium to communicate better with their constituents.
	I welcome the Welsh Assembly's recent commitment of approximately £500,000 to community radio funding in Wales. That is to be applauded. We need to consider exploring financial opportunities for community radio more widely.
	I became a great local radio enthusiast because we do not have local radio in north Wales. Despite the fact that we benefit hugely from the BBC in many ways, a decision was made in the past that only one English language and one Welsh language radio station funded by the BBC would exist in Wales. We do not therefore have the special focus on local radio that exists in most parts of the UK. That big gap has taken some time to fill. I hope that community radio will now fill it. I accept that the BBC is entitled to make such a decision, but it frustrates me that my constituents in Wrexham do not have the benefit of a BBC local radio station when people in Shropshire, Stoke and on Merseyside all have such stations. If funding is to be made available in specific parts of the country for local radio, and the BBC is not prepared to provide it in other parts, a proportion of it should be given to others to fund radio provision. To use a dreaded phrase, I support top-slicing the licence fee when there is no local radio provision.
	I value local radio provision. Community radio has a great future, but it must have sustainable funding. It can have broad funding or up to 50 per cent. commercial funding under the current rules, but it must have a baseline of funding and support. In my view, a proportion of the licence fee should partly fund that baseline when the BBC does not agree to provide a local radio station in a specific part of the country.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on bringing the important issue of community radio and community radio funding to the House's attention. I am happy that my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Eccles (Ian Stewart) are present. They have both played their part in promoting community radio. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles chairs the all-party group on community media.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham said, community radio has, in a relatively short time, established itself as a new tier of radio. Already, several people in the UK have benefited from having a community radio station in their area. Eighty-five stations are already on air, and a further sixty-three are preparing to broadcast, having secured a licence from Ofcom. We eventually expect around 200 stations across the country. I pay tribute to Sheffield, which goes live today, and we look forward to many other stations coming on stream.
	Ofcom has stated a desire for a community radio station for every community that wants one. This rapid growth represents a fantastic achievement by all those involved with community radio stations. At the centre of many of the stations is a core of dedicated, enthusiastic people making a contribution to their local community. Many volunteer their precious spare time to do so. One of the attractions of the concept of community radio is that it is run by local people for local people.
	I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of giving creative work of a local nature a platform to prosper. My Department has been working with the Arts Council to research the role that community radio could have in the creative industries. The findings of that research will be available shortly. Of course, these stations cannot be run on determination alone, and every community radio station must seek and obtain funding. I do not pretend that that is ever easy. That is why my Department has provided more than £1.5 million to the community radio fund during the past three years.
	What is the community radio fund? The Department recognises that certain activities, such as media skills training, are more attractive to funders than bids for running costs such as management and administration. That is why we have directed the fund, administered by Ofcom, to provide support for the core costs of running a station, which are notoriously difficult to secure. As I have said, more than £1.5 million has already been awarded to community radio stations from the fund. That has taken the form of 79 grants made directly to stations by Ofcom. The feedback from the awards has on the whole been very positive, and has included such responses as
	"without the Community Radio Fund, the station would not have survived".
	I am therefore pleased to confirm to the House that, following the comprehensive spending review, we have decided to maintain funding at the current level of up to £500,000 a year for each of the next three years. I hope that that is good news, and that it will be welcomed by the sector.

Ian Stewart: I chair the all-party parliamentary group on community media, which covers community radio, and on its behalf I welcome the funding. Without it, the sector would not exist. If the Minister accepts the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and by the all-party group relating to the value of the sector, he will surely understand that, although £1.5 million over three years is welcome, it cannot come near to the amount necessary to stabilise the sector for the future. Will he meet me and my committee to discuss these matters further?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the spirit of his intervention, which was really about how we are to sustain community radio. Obviously, I am prepared to meet him and his hon. Friends for further discussions. If those discussions cannot take place with me, perhaps the Secretary of State will attend to the matter in due course—

Ian Stewart: Or both of you?

Gerry Sutcliffe: Even both of us, if that is appropriate.
	My hon. Friend is right to suggest that there are pressures on the fund. We also recognise that they are likely to increase as more stations come on air and become eligible to apply for funding. Ofcom will clearly receive more and more applications. Given such pressure, it is only right that we step up our efforts to find ways in which the fund might be used even more effectively in the future. That is why my Department is planning to seek views on the future scope and direction of the fund. That will take the form of a short consultation and may also include any proposals that Ofcom makes in its review of the first two years of community radio. As many hon. Members will know, we asked Ofcom to undertake a two-year review, reporting to us on how the sector was developing and how the criteria established by Parliament in the Community Radio Order 2004 were working in practice. Ofcom is due to make its recommendations to us shortly, and I look forward to seeing its findings.
	We have established a framework for community radio, with the underlying principle that its services should be distinct from those of commercial radio. I believe that that is likely to remain an important distinction. Community radio stations should complement, rather than compete with, commercial stations. We will wish them to remain relatively free from commercial pressures.
	It was for those reasons that the Community Radio Order included restrictions on the percentage of a station's revenue that could be received from advertising. We believe that that has helped to keep community radio distinct from commercial radio. Ofcom has been asked to review the details of those restrictions and others in the Community Radio Order. Only where it is appropriate and only where there is evidence would we be willing to consider bringing forward proposals for the modification or removal of some of the restrictions through a new order, which would, of course, be subject to consultation.
	Alongside my Department's funding and any commercial revenues, the scope of community radio's potential contribution is so broad as to be able to support the objectives of a wide range of socially focused bodies. Research published by my Department at the end of last year showed how quickly community groups had been able to pick up on the opportunities presented by this tier of radio. Clear social gain benefits can, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham pointed out, be found in areas such as training, work placement, volunteering, community relations, social inclusion and arts and culture. Many stations have developed to become community drop-in centres where radio is just one part of the services delivered.
	There is little doubt about the potential that community radio has to benefit communities—for example, in providing opportunities for some members of the community who might otherwise be at risk of offending to develop skills. That is on the production side of community radio. On the listening side, there is the provision of information and entertainment to sections of the community that are often unengaged with other types of broadcasters.
	It is that unique ability of building and sustaining diverse communities that can be of such great benefit in targeting potential funders. There are good examples of where some stations are already doing that. BCB 106.6fm, which broadcasts to part of my constituency, receives funding from a wide variety of sources, including the Home Office, local government through Bradford council, the Big Lottery Fund and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I hope that that model will increasingly apply.
	Community radio is flexible enough to be of interest to us all. More importantly, it provides opportunities that, as we have seen with BCB, should be attractive to a number of public bodies in helping them to meet their objectives. It is for that reason that community radio can appeal to, and seek funding from, a wide number of grant-giving bodies. I agree with my hon. Friend that a range of bodies are potentially relevant. I am not too sure about issues surrounding the BBC, but perhaps we can look further into them in our discussions. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend's suggestion that local government should have a greater role in funding community radio. Indeed, officials from my Department and the Department for Communities and Local Government have recently met to explore that possibility, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is due to meet representatives from the community radio sector next month.
	To conclude, my Department provides some funding, which at the moment is important in helping new stations find their feet—and that funding will continue. In the light of Ofcom's recommendations, we will consider whether we are targeting our money most effectively. As has been said, there are many other authorities and bodies that can work with and through the community radio sector and I welcome the opportunity provided by this debate to highlight again the sector's potential. Community radio can provide a new focus for our communities and I look forward to seeing a wider range of support, so that we can benefit from a thriving and sustainable community radio sector in the future.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Ten o'clock.